Introduction: Luke’s Use of Scripture
The evidence of Luke’s use of scriptural quotations in his Gospel can be summarized as follows (see Fitzmyer 1998; Rusam 2003: 4–7, 492–96; Powery 1999: 239–47).
1. Luke does not cite extended passages from the OT, but cites only a verse or two (the one exception is Acts 2:17–21). In contrast to the Reflexionszitate in Matthew, in Luke’s Gospel all except the first three quotations (2:23, 24; 3:4–6) are found in the narration of direct speech—that of Jesus (4:4, 8, 12, 18–19; 7:27; 18:20; 19:46; 20:17, 37, 42–43; 22:37), of the devil (4:10–11), of a scribe (10:27), and of the Sadducees (20:28).
Luke evidently was familiar with the tripartite canon of the Hebrew Scriptures: note particularly 24:44: “the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms” (cf. 16:16: “the law and the prophets”; 16:29, 31: “Moses and the prophets”). Luke quotes from the Pentateuch (10x), from the prophets (7x), and from the psalms (7x). It is striking that he does not quote from the Historical Books (which is also true for Acts), despite Luke’s program of writing the history of Jesus and his disciples imitating the biblical narratives of the OT Scriptures (see Fitzmyer 1998: 303).
2. The fact that Luke uses fewer explicit quotations in his Gospel (twenty-five [see Fitzmyer 1998: 297, 311n5]) than Matthew does in his (thirty-eight) must not be misread to suggest that Luke was less interested in intertextual links with Israel’s Scriptures. Luke’s allusions to OT material need to be taken into account as well: C. A. Kimball (1994b: 206–12) finds 439 OT allusions in the Gospel of Luke (note that Kimball [1994b: 204–5] finds thirty-three OT quotations in Luke). It is not helpful to argue that “Jesus rarely appropriates scripture to talk about himself specifically,” interpreting Luke’s use of explicit quotations as “a conservative portrayal” on the basis of eliminating allusions to and echoes of OT passages (Powery 1999: 243). In the first-century Jewish context it does not seem to have made much difference whether a passage of Scripture is explicitly quoted or alluded to. Luke’s references to the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms clearly express his conviction that the person and ministry of Jesus, as well as the Christian communities and their message, are based on the Jewish Scriptures. In Luke’s presentation in his Gospel, as well as in the book of Acts, “the community of followers of Jesus, the Messiah, is to be understood in the perspective of the ongoing history of Israel” (Tomson 2002: 180).
3. Luke explicitly quotes seven OT passages in Luke-Acts: (1) the allusion to Ps. 2:7 LXX in Luke 3:22 is quoted explicitly in Acts 13:33; (2) the allusion to Isa. 61:1–2 in Luke 7:22 is quoted explicitly in Luke 4:18–19; (3) the allusion to Isa. 61:1–2 in Acts 10:34–38 is quoted explicitly in Luke 4:18–19; (4) the allusion to Isa. 6:9 in Luke 8:10 is quoted explicitly in Acts 28:26; (5) the allusion to Ps. 68:26 LXX in Luke 13:35 is quoted explicitly in Acts 1:20; (6) the allusion to Ps. 118:22 in Acts 4:11 is quoted explicitly in Luke 20:17; (7) the allusion to Exod. 3:6 in Acts 3:13 is quoted explicitly in Luke 20:37; Acts 7:32. When OT passages are both quoted and alluded to, the allusion always comes before the quotation (with the exception of Ps. 118:22, which is first quoted in Luke 20:17 and then alluded to in Acts 4:11). This suggests that Luke could assume a high level of biblical literary competence among his readers.
The introductory formulas do not follow a uniform scheme. It is evident, however, that Luke often is interested in marking the location of the quotation in a manner that is as precise as possible. Note 20:42, “for David himself says in the book of Psalms” (autos gar Dauid legei en biblō psalmōn), compared with the parallel passage Mark 12:36, “David himself said in the Holy Spirit” (autos Dauid eipen en tō pneumati tō hagiō); Luke 3:4: “as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet” (hōs gegraptai en biblō logōn Ēsaiou tou prophētou).
4. The discussion about the source(s) of Luke’s OT quotations continues. Whereas some scholars assume that Luke used both the LXX and testimonia, which are collections of OT passages devoted to specific themes, particularly texts regarded as messianic prophecies (Harris 1916; Albl 1999), other scholars argue that Luke used only the LXX (Rese 1969: 222–23; Gundry 1967: 165–66), never the Hebrew or Aramaic text (Holtz 1968: 12; Fitzmyer 1998: 305–6), or both the LXX and the Hebrew and Aramaic texts (Bock 1987: 271).
5. Luke’s exegetical methods are evaluated differently by different scholars. Some argue that in some passages—for example, Luke 1–2—Luke composed a midrash based on OT texts (Laurentin 1964; R. E. Brown 1993), while other scholars reject this analysis (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 308; cf. Bock 1987: 55, 292 with note 2). Most scholars agree that Luke employs various methods of contemporary Jewish exegesis (see Ellis 1991: 91–101; Kimball 1994b: 199–200; Bock 1987: 272).
6. Luke understands Scripture (hē graphē) as normatively directing the actions of people (2:23–24; 4:8, 10, 12; 10:25–37; 18:18–25; 19:46; cf. 20:37). It should be noted that most of the quotations that Luke uses come from the Pentateuch. Jesus’ life and ministry was, from the beginning, a history that fulfilled the nomos kyriou, the “law of the Lord” (2:23–24; cf. 4:8, 10, 12; 19:46). The question “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” is answered with scriptural quotations (10:27; 18:20), demonstrating that the function of Scripture is to show the path to eternal life (Rusam 2003: 127, 492–93).
7. Luke’s use of OT Scripture underlines his conviction that Scripture prophetically announced Jesus’ life and ministry (18:31–33; 24:26–27, 44–47), and that Scripture illustrates the story of Jesus’ ministry, rejection, and death (4:24; 11:47–51; 13:31–35; cf. the end of Luke–Acts in Acts 28:25–28). For Luke, both the fact that Jesus’ life and ministry can be illustrated by allusions to the OT Scriptures and the fact that some OT passages announced events in Jesus’ life prove that Jesus’ ministry was divinely ordained. It is significant that this prophetic use of Scripture is derived from Jesus himself (Luke 18:31–33; 24:26–27, 44–47). Luke will show in his second volume that it is this “prophetic interpretation of Scripture”—that is, the application of certain OT texts to Jesus—that separates unbelieving Jews from the followers of Jesus (Rusam 2003: 493–96).
While many scholars argue that Luke’s use of the OT should be understood in terms of a prophecy-and-fulfillment pattern or in terms of proof-from-prophecy concerns (Conzelmann, Lohse, Schubert, Fitzmyer), some argue that there is no linear-temporal movement from promise to fulfillment, since Luke uses the OT simply as an explanation of events without the notion of prophecy being present (Rese). The evidence of Luke’s Gospel, as well as advances in hermeneutical method, render the latter view implausible and suggest a modification of the former view because Luke’s use of the OT is not primarily defensive in terms of a polemical apologetic. We may describe Luke’s use of the OT, particularly as it concerns Christology, in terms of “proclamation from prophecy and pattern” because “Luke sees the Scripture fulfilled in Jesus in terms of the fulfillment of OT prophecy and in terms of the re-introduction and fulfillment of OT patterns that point to the presence of God’s saving work” (Bock 1987: 274–77). Luke repeatedly emphasizes in his Gospel that the OT Scriptures are “fulfilled” in Jesus (4:18–19; 18:31; 24:44). This does not mean, however, that for Luke “Scripture is fundamentally [verbal] prediction” (P.-G. Müller 1984: 324). Rather, for Luke, Scripture is the means to comprehend God’s acts of salvation in the past, in the present, and in the future (Rese 1969: 209) and is also a means of demonstrating the fulfillment of God’s promises given to the people of Israel in the person of Jesus and of underscoring the presence of God’s salvation in the ministry of Jesus (Bock).
8. Jesus’ explicit use of Scripture in the Gospel of Luke increases markedly in Jerusalem: of the twelve quotations of scriptural passages in this Gospel, five are linked with Jesus’ stay in Jerusalem at the end of his ministry—19:46 (Isa. 56:7); 20:17 (Ps. 118:22); 20:37 (Exod. 3:15); 20:42–43 (Ps. 110:1); 22:37 (Isa. 53:12)—with three important programmatic statements about Scripture in 24:27, 32, 44–45 in the final chapter of the Gospel. Jesus’ use of Scripture in chapters 19–22 coincides with the growing tension in the narrative caused by Jesus’ presence in Jerusalem: note the constant presence of Jewish leaders in the context of Jesus’ use of Scripture, and note the focus on important Jewish symbols and concepts (temple, resurrection, messiah) in the context of the scriptural quotations (Powery 1999: 239–40). This “christological” use of the OT can be traced back to Jesus himself (Bock 1987: 273–74).
9. Luke begins his narrative of Jesus’ activities with the scene of Jesus in the Jerusalem temple discussing matters of Scripture containing the first explicit words of Jesus (2:41–50) and with the scene of Jesus in his hometown synagogue reading and interpreting Scripture (4:16–30), and he ends the first volume of his narrative with the scene of the risen Jesus interpreting Scripture (24:44–47) (see Powery 1999: 242).
10. Jesus’ programmatic statements on Scripture, particularly in 24:27, 32, 44–45, emphasize that the Christians’ belief in Jesus as the risen Lord is essential for understanding Scripture: “For Luke, the use and persuasiveness of scripture is more about power and revelation than logic. Or, the logic of scripture is discovered in the power and revelation of the resurrected Lord” (Powery 1999: 245). As Luke clearly was concerned to show through his OT quotations and allusions how the story of Jesus fitted into the history of God’s dealings with his people in the Scriptures, “he, too, wrote biblical history” (Fitzmyer 1998: 309).
The elegant and balanced Greek sentence in 1:1–4 is followed by a long section that provides an introduction to the public ministry of Jesus in chapter 3. Not only is the Greek of this section strikingly different from the Lukan prologue (and the rest of Luke-Acts), but also allusions to the OT occur throughout this section. A survey of patterns of OT echoes and allusions is necessary before examining them in detail.
Language and Genre
Discussions of the language of Luke 1–2 involve the nature of the Greek in this section, the sources behind the text, and the purpose of using this writing style. Terms such as “Semitism,” “Hebraism,” and “Aramaism” have been used especially by those who argue for the presence of written Semitic sources behind individual sections of Luke 1–2 (see Burrows 1940: 6–39; Winter 1954). Although individual examples of Semitism can be cited, this source-critical solution fails to account for the unity of style throughout this section. Equally important is the consistent presence of the Lukan hand in this section (Hawkins 1899: 13–23). Although not denying the presence of Semitic sources behind the text, others (N. Turner 1955; Fitzmyer 1981: 114–25, 312) have provided strong arguments for the use of the term “Septuagintism” instead for this section with the assumption that Luke imitates the style of the Greek OT (while acknowledging that the distinction between translation and imitation Greek may be hard to discern [see Farris 1981]). The strengths of this position lie in the distinction between Septuagintism and Semitism, and in the emphasis on Luke’s intentionality in his use of language. The significant presence of the LXX in the rest of the Lukan writings also lends support to this hypothesis, although evidence of “translation Greek” cannot be discounted (see Farris 1985: 50–62). The purpose of such imitation (or retention of the style of Semitic sources) has been attributed to the emphasis on the Palestinian context of the events (Plummer 1896: xlix; Moulton 1929: 7–8), the concern to situate the text within the beginning of the apostolic age (Plümacher 1972: 72–78), and the evocation of the mighty acts of God in Israel’s past (Ó Fearghail 1991: 127–28). With the absence of explicit OT quotations in this section (with the exception of the parenthetical note in Luke 2:23–24), these allusions may also serve as an indication of Luke’s intention to write “biblical history” as he highlights the continuation of God’s work in history.
In light of the saturation of OT language, concepts, and allusions, the label “midrash” has been used for this section. The validity of the application of this label depends on one’s precise definition of this term. On the level of hermeneutical foundation, the term is useful in highlighting the affirmation of the transcendent authority of the ancient text as well as the belief of the one God behind salvation-historical events (see Kugel 1983). As a literary technique, implicit midrash rightly focuses on the significance of scriptural language in ancient theological discourse (Ellis 1991: 91–101). As a label for the genre of this section (Gertner 1962: 273–82; Goulder 1974: 457–71), however, this term fails to account for the literary and historical nature of the text. First, explicit OT quotations that play a critical part in midrashic literature do not play the same role in this text. Second, the focus of the story is on the events surrounding the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus and not on the explication of the OT text. Third, the creation of a series of events apart from the temporal framework of the ancient text is not a characteristic of midrashic literature. Moreover, the sustained interest in situating the events within their proper historical framework throughout the Lukan writings also argues against midrashic creativity in this section. On the exegetical utility of this label, Hays (1989: 14) rightly notes that “the label midrash tends to bring the interpretive process to a halt, as though it had explained everything.” In recognizing the significant presence of scriptural language in this tense, “imitative historiography” (Burrows 1940: 1–3) draws attention to the literary relationships to ancient texts, while “confessional history” (Schneider 1992: 77–78; Bock 1994–1996: 71) points to the nature of such imitative acts.
Continuity of Salvation History
The use of biblical language is complemented by the textual links between the time of Jesus and the history of Israel. The temple scene begins this section with references to the priesthood and to Aaron himself (1:5). Zechariah serves “according to the custom of the priesthood” as he enters “the sanctuary of the Lord and offer(s) sacrifice” (1:9), and it is in this setting that the announcement of the birth of John was made. The birth narrative ends with a temple scene (2:21–24), while the entire infancy narrative also ends with the appearance of Jesus in the temple at the age of twelve (2:41–52). Since Jerusalem was understood as the center of Israel, the prophets were looking forward to the reappearance of God’s mighty acts in that city (see Isa. 40:1–2; 52:1; 56:7; Jer. 31:38–40). The significance of the temple in the Lukan infancy narrative reflects an awareness of such beliefs, as people “were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem” (2:38).
Within the context of the cultic life of Israel, the piety and faithfulness of the main characters are highlighted. Zechariah and Elizabeth are described as “righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord” (1:6), and Joseph and Mary acted “according to what is stated in the law of the Lord” (2:24). Simeon was “righteous and devout” (2:25), and Anna “never left the temple, but worshiped there with fasting and prayer night and day” (2:37).
Perhaps the strongest link between the ministry of Jesus and the OT lies in the character of John the Baptist. In the step parallelism developed between Jesus and John, the connection between the two eras is emphasized. As the eschatological Elijah, John will “turn the hearts of parents to their children . . . to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (1:17; cf. 1:76). With allusions to Mal. 3:22–24 LXX (4:4–6 ET; cf. Sir. 48:10) and Isa. 40:3, John was portrayed as the eschatological Elijah who points back to God’s work in history while looking forward to the fulfillment of prophetic promises. With John as the eschatological prophet, a radical discontinuity is also emphasized, when salvation history is to be brought to its climax. John can be understood as being among “the holy prophets from of old” (1:70), but Jesus is the “Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord” (2:11). With the ambiguous symbol of John, one therefore finds both continuity and discontinuity with Israel’s past.
Dawn of the Eschatological Era
As the appearance of John the Baptist signifies the renewal of prophecy and the salvific acts of God in history (see 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41; b. Yoma 9b), this section highlights the dawn of the eschatological era. The intensity of the presence of the Holy Spirit highlights this point: Elizabeth “was filled with the Holy Spirit” (1:41), and so was Zechariah (1:67). The ministry of John the Baptist is characterized as that of the Spirit (1:15). Simeon, who looks forward to the consolation of Israel (cf. Isa. 40:1), receives the Spirit (2:25) and the revelation “by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah” (2:26). Although the presence of the Spirit can be found in the accounts of OT characters (e.g., Joshua [Num. 27:18], Samson [Judg. 13:25], David [1 Sam. 16:13]), this intensity can be paralleled only by the Pentecost event in Luke’s second volume (Acts 2), where the promises uttered by John (Luke 3:16) and Jesus (Luke 11:13; 12:12; Acts 1:8) are fulfilled (Ravens 1995: 26). These events point to the fulfillment of ancient promises that speak of the role of the Spirit at the end of times (see esp. Isa. 32:14–17 [cf. Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8]; Joel 2:28–32 [cf. Acts 2:17–21]), when God restores his people for his glory (Acts 3:19–20) (see Pao 2000: 131–35).
Most significant of all is the role of the Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus, as expressed in the words addressed to Mary: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God” (1:35). Parallels have been sought in texts that refer to the creation of the world (Gen. 1:2; Ps. 33:6) or individuals (Job 33:4; Ps. 104:30; Jdt. 16:14; 2 Bar. 21:4) (see Strauss 1995: 91), but the unique role of the Spirit in the conception of Jesus is unparalleled.
Within this eschatological setting one finds the identification of the angel as Gabriel (1:19, 26). The revelatory role of Gabriel in Dan. 8–10 should not be missed. Not only are there references to the name “Gabriel” (Dan. 8:16; 9:21), but also wider parallels between Dan. 8–10 and Luke 1–2 can be further identified: prayer (1:13; Dan. 9:23), sacrifice (1:9–10; Dan. 9:20–21), vision (1:22; Dan. 8:17), favor of God (1:28; Dan 9:23), fear (1:12; Dan. 8:17; 10:8–9, 12, 19), and speech impediment (1:20; Dan. 10:15) (Laurentin 1964: 45–46; Goulder 1989: 1:211; R. E. Brown 1993: 270–71; Ravens 1995: 30). As the one who acts on behalf of God (cf. 1 En. 40:9; 54:6; T. Sol. 18:6), Gabriel, in both Daniel and Luke, symbolizes the renewal of God’s involvement among his people.
The eschatological content of this section is reinforced by the form in which much of the material is presented. Since hymns typically were composed by prophets (e.g., Exod. 15:20; Judg. 4:4), the prophetic and hymnic nature in Luke 1–2 falls within Israel’s tradition. Especially important is Exod. 15, where the paradigmatic mighty acts of God are depicted in hymnic language. With the decline of classical prophecy in Second Temple Jewish literature, biblical hymns were reused (e.g., Exod. 15 in Jdt. 16; Deut. 32 in Tob. 13), and poetry became the primary medium through which eschatological hope was expressed (see Horgan and Kobelski 1989; Weitzman 1997: 65–70). The Qumran Thanksgiving Hymns (1QHa), for example, provide a parallel to the Lukan hymns, where one finds similar themes (praise of the redemptive acts of God, humility, salvation, the fulfillment of eschatological hopes) together with a saturation of biblical language. The Lukan hymns therefore reflect not only the classical hymns of Israel’s history but also the modes of eschatological discourse in first-century Palestinian Judaism (Cross 1958: 166).
Barren Women and the Redemption of Israel
The birth stories of John and Jesus belong to the long tradition of birth stories in the OT and in Jewish literature (see Callaway 1986: 13–72). Prominent among these stories is the motif of barrenness. This appears in the stories of Sarah (Gen. 18), Rebekah (Gen. 25), Rachel (Gen. 30), the mother of Samson (Judg. 13), and Hannah (1 Sam. 1–2). Not only are these stories concerned with the reversal of the fortune of the individual barren women, but also the births of the heroes are linked with the fulfillment of God’s covenantal promises to Israel. The presence of God for his people is therefore the underlying theme behind these narratives.
Already in the OT the barren women came to be understood as representing Israel. In the Song of Hannah the subject moves from “the barren” (1 Sam. 2:5) to “his [God’s] faithful ones” (2:9) and finally to “his king” and “his anointed” (2:10). Hannah therefore serves also as a symbol of a suffering Israel (Callaway 1986: 54). Moving to the prophets, we see Isaiah using the barren woman to symbolize the scattered people of God (Isa. 49:20–21), whose fortune will be reversed when their enemies “bow down” to them (49:23). This is explicitly stated in Isa. 54:1: “Sing, O barren one who did not bear; burst into song and shout, you who have not been in labor!” Not only does this symbolic usage survive in later Jewish literature, but also the various barren women in the historical material were linked together with the Isaianic symbol of suffering Israel (cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 20:2, which includes citations of Gen. 21:7; 30:11; 1 Sam. 1:2; 2:21; Isa. 49:21; 54:1; Jer. 30:17; see Callaway 1986: 122). In the Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55) the shift from Mary’s own self (“He has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant” [1:48]) to the people of God (“He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy” [1:54]) fits well within the Jewish usage of the OT motif of barren women. What is unique in the Lukan account is the lack of hints of competition between John and Jesus, as both participated in the fulfillment of ancient promises (see Brenner 1986: 269–70).
Amid the numerous allusions made to the various birth stories in the OT, two stand out as the primary reference for reading the Lukan birth narrative. Allusions to the story of Sarah have frequently been noted (see commentary below), but Green (1994) has shown that Luke consistently alludes in Luke 1–2 to the wider story of Abraham in Gen. 11–21 while explicitly naming Abraham in 1:55 as the patriarch of “our ancestors.” These allusions do not make strict typological connections between individual characters, however, since the allusions are related in a complex way among the various characters. The interest lies, therefore, not primarily in the individual characters, but rather in the Abrahamic covenant, which finds its climax in the story of Luke. This interest of Luke in the Abrahamic promises is not limited to the birth narrative (note, e.g., the role of Abraham in Stephen’s speech in Acts 7:2–8; see Dahl 1966; Siker 1991: 103–27; Lampe 1993), but the intensity of the Abrahamic references in Luke 1–2 highlights the significance of this series of events as the fulfillment of “the oath that he swore to our ancestor Abraham” (1:73).
The second focus in the use of OT birth stories is found in the story of Hannah at the beginning of 1 Samuel. The Lukan use of the Hannah story is found in the introduction to the Lukan birth narrative (1:5; cf. 1 Sam. 1:1–2), the Nazirite framework (1:15; cf. 1 Sam. 1:11), allusions to the Song of Hannah (1 Sam. 2:1–10) in the Magnificat (1:46–55), the presentation of Jesus in the temple (2:21–24; cf. 1 Sam. 1:24–28), and the summary statements in 1:80; 2:40, 52 (cf. 1 Sam. 2:21, 26). While falling within the paradigm of barren women, the allusions to Hannah in Luke 1–2 point in particular to the role of Samuel in the introduction and installation of King David (Rusam 2003: 41). This connection is explicitly made in Acts, where the anointing of King David is located during the time of “Samuel the prophet” (Acts 13:20–22). As the Abrahamic covenant finds its expression in the Davidic covenant, the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel also points back to the Davidic era. This is confirmed by the numerous references to the Davidic sonship in this section, the most explicit found in Luke 1:32–33 (“He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David”), a passage that alludes to 2 Sam. 7 and also to the royal psalm in Ps. 87 (see Strauss 1995: 87–88).
People of God
In this introductory section Luke also draws attention to the ecclesiological impact in depicting the climax of salvation history. Using biblical language, Luke describes the ministry of John as one that is addressed to Israel: “He will turn many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God” (1:16; cf. Deut. 30:2; Hos. 3:5; 7:10; see Bock 1994–1996: 87). The ministry of Jesus is likewise described as a mission for Israel (1:54) in the context of the ancient promises (1:55; cf. 1:72). Drawing out the original intent of the Abrahamic promises (1:55, 73), Israel will also serve as an instrument of God’s blessings for the nations. In Isaianic terms, the Messiah will serve as “a light for revelation to the Gentiles” (2:32; cf. Isa. 42:6; 49:6), although the full effect can be felt only in Luke’s second volume, where one finds an explicit reference to Isa. 49:6 (Acts 13:47). Isaiah had been widely used in Jewish material in depicting the redemption of Israel, but the emphasis on the mission to the Gentiles represents a major transformation of Second Temple Jewish eschatological hope (see Pao 2000: 217–48).
1:5
The division of priests into classes can be traced back to the time of David (1 Chron. 28:13), and contemporary Jewish writers testify to the use of a similar system in the first century (Josephus, Ant. 7.363–367; see Creed 1930: 8). The style and vocabulary call to mind Judg. 13:2 and 1 Sam. 1:1, but the general introduction that provides the essential biographical data frequently appears in prophetic literature (e.g., Jer. 1:1–3; Amos 1:1; Mic. 1:1; Zeph. 1:1; Zech. 1:1). Moreover, the opening formula using the word egeneto is found at the beginning of a number of Jewish works (Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Samuel, Judith, 1 Maccabees, Jubilees, Joseph and Aseneth). The cultic context evoked by references to the priests, priesthood, and Aaron is enhanced by the name “Elizabeth,” the name of the wife of Aaron (Exod. 6:23).
1:6
The phrase “commandments and regulations” (entolais kai dikaiōmasin) reflects biblical expressions (Gen. 26:5; Num. 36:13; Deut. 4:40; cf. 1 Kings 8:61).
1:8–10
The word naos refers to the place outside the holy of holies. Exodus 30:7–8 provides the regulations for the offering of the morning and evening incense sacrifice (cf. m. Tamid 6–7). With the presence of the crowd and the possible parallel with Dan. 9:21, the evening sacrifice may be the intended reference here (Schneider 1992: 45; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 325; Bock 1994–1996: 80). The casting of lots would determine who among the large group of priests would be chosen for this task (cf. m. Tamid 5:2–6:3). The offering of prayer during the sacrifice is also well attested (Ezra 9:5–15; Dan. 9:21; Jdt. 9:1–14; Sir. 50:12–21; see Green 1997: 71).
1:11
The “angel of the Lord” often represents God himself (cf. Gen. 16:7–13; Exod. 3:2–4; 14:19; 23:20; Num. 20:16; Judg. 6:11–22; Isa. 63:9; Hos. 12:4–5; see Juncker 2001: 34). The interchangeability of the two can explain the appearances of angels in the announcements of the births of Ishmael, Isaac, and Samson (cf. Gen. 16:10–12; 18:9–15; Judg. 13:3–21), while other birth announcements point directly to the presence of God himself (Gen. 17:15–19; 25:22–23).
1:12–13
Fear is the expected response to the presence of God or his messengers (Exod. 15:16; Judg. 6:22–23; 13:6, 22; 2 Sam. 6:9; Isa. 6:5; Dan. 8:16–17; 10:10–11; see Bock 1994–1996: 81). The command “Do not be afraid” (1:13) is found in OT birth announcements (Gen. 21:17; 35:17; 1 Sam. 4:20), and it often also appears in divine war narratives (Num. 14:9; Deut. 1:20–21; 20:3–4; Josh. 8:1–2; 2 Kings 6:15–19; Isa. 41:10). The appearance of this formula in other “unconventional” military settings suggests that it should be understood in its wider covenantal context—the focus of which is the act of God on behalf of his people (cf. Gen. 15:1–2; 21:17–18; 26:24; 46:3–4; Exod. 14:13–14; see Conrad 1985: 124–45). The naming of the child by the angel confirms the significance of that person in the covenantal plan of God (cf. “You shall name him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him” [Gen. 17:19; cf. Isa. 7:14]).
1:15
The phrase “from his mother’s womb” (ek koilias mētros autou) can mean “from birth” (cf. Ps. 22:10 [21:11 LXX]), but in light of 1:41 it has to refer to “before birth” (cf. Judg. 13:7; Isa. 44:2; 49:1; Gal. 1:15). The prohibition against “wine or strong drink” (oinon kai sikera) suggests to some that Luke considers John to be a Nazirite (cf. Judg. 13; see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 326; R. E. Brown 1993: 268). The lack of reference to the cutting of hair has led others to describe him simply as an ascetic prophet (cf. Luke 7:25–33; see Bock 1994–1996: 85). The appearance of the exact phrase oinon kai sikera in the commandments delivered to Aaron in Lev. 10:9 has further encouraged some to highlight the priestly context here (Bovon 2002: 36). In light of the portrayal of Samuel as one who is to avoid wine and strong drinks (cf. 1 Sam. 1:11 LXX and the identification of him as a Nazirite in 1 Sam. 1:22 in 4Q51) and the parallel between the Magnificat and the Song of Hannah (1 Sam. 2:1–10), the audience is encouraged to see 1 Sam. 1–2 behind this verse as well. The absence of the prohibition against the cutting of hair may be explained by the Lukan emphasis on John as one who devotes himself entirely to the Lord (cf. Eph. 5:18) and not on his formal status as a Nazirite. This reading would therefore also acknowledge the significance of Lev. 10:9 and the cultic setting in both Luke 1 and 1 Sam. 1–2.
1:16
The language of “turning” or “returning” to God is used in the OT for the repentance of God’s people (Deut. 30:2; 1 Sam. 7:3; Hos. 3:5; 7:10; cf. Acts 15:19). An allusion to Mal. 2:6 (pollous epestrepsen) in particular is probable in light of the words pollous . . . epistrepsei (“he will turn many”) and the role of Malachi in Mal. 2:7 (cf. Luke 1:17; see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 326; Bock 1994–1996: 87).
1:17
“To turn the hearts of parents to their children” (epistrepsai kardias paterōn epi tekna) clearly alludes to Mal. 4:6 (3:24 MT; 3:23 LXX), although the wordings are not exact. The MT provides a close conceptual parallel, but the LXX uses a different verb (apokatastēsei) with the singular patros and a different word for “son” (huion). A closer parallel in wording is found in Sir. 48:10, where the same verb is used (epistrepsai kardian patros pros huion). The Sirach passage clearly is based on Malachi, and in both one finds references to Elijah and his role in the eschatological reconciliation between God and his people. Sirach makes it explicit with reference to the restoration of Israel (katastēssai phylas Iakōb), and this restoration theme plays an important role in the Lukan account of John’s ministries (see M. Turner 1996: 151).
The phrase “before him” (enōpion autou) may point back to pro prosōpou mou (“before me”) in Mal. 3:1 (see Creed 1930: 11). The Malachi passage in turn draws on Isa. 40:3 (“prepare the way of the LORD,” hetoimasate tēn hodon kyriou), a text that has a history of its own in Jewish exegetical traditions (see Luke 3:4–6 below). Although the expression “prepared people” may recall other passages (e.g., 2 Sam. 7:24; Isa. 43:7; see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 321), the Elijah framework urges a focus on the Malachi passages.
These references to the role of Elijah in Malachi raise questions concerning Luke’s view of the relationship between Elijah and John the Baptist. R. E. Brown sees an explicit identification of John with the eschatological Elijah here (R. E. Brown 1993: 276–77), while others limit the parallel to the prophetic ministries of the two (see Marshall 1978: 59). The fact that Jesus was also portrayed within this Elijah paradigm (cf. 4:25; 7:16) highlights the wider context in which the Elijah reference should be understood (Brodie 1987). Instead of insisting on the connection between Elijah and John, this verse points to the arrival of the eschatological era wherein one encounters the prophetic activities that reflect the renewal of God’s mighty acts among his people. The specific reference to Mal. 4:6 serves to highlight the reconciliatory role of John as he prepares God’s people for this great day.
The context of Mal. 4 also focuses on the sinful condition of Israel. The remaining phrase in this verse, “the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous” (apeitheis en phronēsei dikaiōn) may likewise reflect the juxtaposition of “the righteous” and “the wicked” in Mal. 3:18 (cf. 2:6; see Green 1997: 77). The parallelism developed in this verse (parents/children, disobedience/righteous) may be a loose one pointing to the general theme of reconciliation (Marshall 1978: 59; Johnson 1991: 33). In light of the significance of Mal. 4:6, however, the Lukan phrase “the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous” may also parallel the implied act of repentance that will lead to God’s promise not to “strike the land with a curse” (Mal. 4:6).
1:18
Zechariah’s response, “How do I know that this is so?” (kata ti gnōsomai touto), is almost identical to Abraham’s reaction to the promise of God (Gen. 15:8), while the second half of the verse parallels Gen. 18:11 (cf. 17:17).
1:19–20, 22
See discussion above (on 1:5–2:52) for the parallels with Dan. 8–10. The verb euangelizomai (“to bring good news”) evokes the Isaianic promises (Isa. 40:9; 52:7) where the new exodus is in view (Stuhlmacher 1968: 109–79, 218–25). This word group also appears in Roman imperial propaganda (see Priene Inscription [OGIS #458]), and Luke’s use of this verb may carry a secondary significance in reaction to such propaganda.
1:23–24
The note on returning home and conception parallels Elkanah and Hannah, who “went home,” and “in due time Hannah conceived” (1 Sam. 1:19–20).
1:25
The mentioning of the deliverance from disgrace recalls the words of Rachel (“God has taken away my reproach” [Gen. 30:23; cf. 21:6]), although Rachel’s reaction came after the birth of her son and not immediately after conception (see Creed 1930: 13; contra R. E. Brown 1993: 281). The statement that precedes, while belonging to the same tradition (cf. Gen. 30:22), further describes the gracious acts of God for the lowly ones: “This is what the Lord has done for me when he looked [epeiden] favorably on me” (cf. Ps. 138:6 [137:6 LXX]; see Bovon 2002: 40).
Luke 1:26–38
The focus of this annunciation scene finds its parallel in other OT birth announcements (Gen. 17; Judg. 13:1–23), but the form resembles that of a commission story (see Ó Fearghail 1993): introduction (1:26–27), confrontation (1:28–30), the call (1:31–33), reservations (1:34), reassurance (1:35), sign (1:36–37), and conclusion (1:38). Here Mary is called to participate in the unfolding of salvation history by being the mother of Jesus.
1:27
The status of Mary as a virgin (parthenos) is mentioned twice in this verse. Many see the word parthenos as intended to evoke Isa. 7:14 (Schürmann 1990–1994: 1:46; Schneider 1992: 49; Marshall 1978: 66; M. Turner 1996: 154), while others remain skeptical (R. E. Brown 1993: 299–300; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 336; Bock 1987: 61–62; 1994–1996: 108; Rusam 2003: 47). To support such a connection, the verbal connection between Luke 1:31 (kai idou syllēmpsē en gastri kai texē huion kai kaleseis to onoma autou Iēsoun, “And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus”) and Isa. 7:14 (idou hē parthenos en gastri hexei kai texetai huion, kai kaleseis to onoma autou Emmanouēl, “Look, the virgin [LXX] is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel”) has been noted. The references to the “house of David” in their immediate contexts (Luke 1:27; Isa. 7:13) together with the unique references to parthenos further highlight the significance of this Isaianic parallel as compared to other annunciation-type scenes in the OT (cf. Gen. 16:11; Judg. 13:5). Other parallels between Luke 1:26–38 and Isa. 7:1–10 further point to the role of Isa. 7:14 behind this verse (see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 336). Although it is true that the tradition concerning Mary’s virginity can be traced beyond the use of Isa. 7, this intertextual connection would at least exist in the mind of the Gospel’s audience. The strong emphasis on the Davidic promise in the immediate context (1:32–33) and throughout Luke 1–2 (see commentary on 1:5–2:52 above) makes it likely that the author also recognizes the hermeneutical significance of Isa. 7–9 in explaining the role and identity of Jesus.
1:28
Instead of taking it as a word of greeting, some (e.g., Lyonnet 1939) have understood chaire as meaning “rejoice.” This reading in turn is understood as pointing back to Zeph. 3:14–17, where eschatological joy is in sight (cf. Joel 2:21; Zech. 9:9). In light of 1:29, however, nothing more than a simple word of greeting seems to be implied (R. E. Brown 1993: 324; Bock 1994–1996: 109; Bovon 2002: 50). On the other hand, the statement “the Lord is with you” does point to Mary’s special role in salvation history (cf. Gen. 26:24; 28:15; Exod. 3:12; Judg. 6:12; Jer. 1:8; Acts 18:9–10; see Creed 1930: 17–18; Green 1997: 87).
For the “do not fear” formula, see 1:12–13 above.
1:31
See 1:27 above.
1:32–33
These verses unmistakably point back to OT expectations of the renewal of the Davidic dynasty. Although numerous passages may have contributed to these verses (Laurentin 1964: 72), significant conceptual parallels exist between these verses and 2 Sam. 7:8–16 (cf. 1 Chron. 17:13–14): Davidic descent (7:8), promise of greatness (7:9), “throne” of David (7:13), divine sonship of the Davidic king (7:14), and perpetual nature of his kingdom (7:16). A similar conglomeration of ideas that appears in Ps. 89 reflects the continued expectation of a Davidic son in the OT (Ps. 2:7; Isa. 7–9; Jer. 23:5–8; 33:14–26; Ezek. 37:24–28; Zech. 3:8–10; 12:7–9) and in Jewish traditions (T. Sim. 7; T. Jud. 24:1–6; T. Naph. 5:1–3; 8:2–3) (see Mitchell 1997; cf. Juel 1988: 87–88). Of particular importance are 4Q174 1 I, 11–14, a pesher of 2 Sam. 7:10–14, which focuses on one ultimate Davidic king, and Pss. Sol. 17, which provides an elaborate account of the activities of this Davidic messiah. In the NT the significance of the Davidic paradigm is reflected in Matt. 1:1–17; 22:41–42; Mark 12:35–36; John 7:42; Acts 13:22–23; Rom. 1:3; Rev. 22:16. In Luke 1–2 the Davidic continues to play a significant role (1:69; 2:4, 11) (see Strauss 1995: 76–125).
1:35
The expression “Holy Spirit” (pneuma hagion) appears in Ps. 51:11 (50:13 LXX) and Isa. 63:10–11. The latter depicts the redeeming activity of God, although a clear connection with Luke 1:35 cannot be established, as this expression appears frequently in early Christian traditions (contra Plymale 1994: 29). More probable is an allusion to Isa. 32:15, which contains similar wording: “until a spirit from on high is poured out on us” (heōs an epelthē eph’ hymas pneuma aph’ hypsēlou). As in Isaiah, Luke speaks of the renewal of Israel as God brings about the new exodus event (M. Turner 1996: 159). Significantly, Isa. 32:15 also plays an important role in other Lukan passages (cf. 24:49; Acts 1:8; 3:20; see Pao 2000: 92, 131–35). The use of OT language can also be identified in the use of the verb episkiazō (“to overshadow”), where the glorious presence of God is in view (cf. Exod. 40:35; Luke 9:34; see Marshall 1978: 70; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 351). In light of 1:32–33, the “Son of God” reference should likewise be understood with reference to 2 Sam. 7:14, where the divine sonship of the Davidic king is affirmed.
1:37
The assertion of the power of God is found throughout the OT (cf. Job 10:13 [LXX]; 42:2; Jer. 32:17, 27; Zech. 8:6), but the significance of this theme in the foundation story of Abraham and Sarah should be recognized (cf. Gen. 18:14; see Brueggemann 1982). The presence of numerous allusions to Gen. 18 in Luke 1–2 make it probable that Gen. 18:14 is behind the formulation of this verse.
1:41
The movement of the fetus finds its precedent in Gen. 25:22–28, although it is doubtful that the struggle between Jacob and Esau is in view here (Bock 1994–1996: 135; Nolland 1989–1993: 66; cf. Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 358). More relevant is the reference to the expressions of eschatological joy in Mal. 4:2 (3:20 LXX) (see Schürmann 1990–1994: 1:66–67; Bovon 2002: 58).
1:42
“Blessed are you among women” echoes similar words of blessing in Judg. 5:24; Jdt. 13:18, and “blessed is the fruit of your womb” echoes the Mosaic blessing promised to the obedient ones in Deut. 28:1, 4. These echoes suggest that the concern was not simply with Mary as an individual, but with God’s people as a whole (R. E. Brown 1993: 342). This concern is also reflected in the close parallel in the prayer of Baruch: “Blessed is my mother among those who bear, and praised among women is she who bore me. For I shall not be silent in honoring the Mighty One but with the voice of glory I shall narrate his marvelous works” (2 Bar. 54:11). It seems that both Luke and the author of 2 Baruch draw on the same tradition in their descriptions of the mighty acts of God.
1:43
The expression “my Lord” (tou kyriou mou) echoes the language of Ps. 110:1 (cf. Luke 20:41–44; Acts 2:34) and therefore points to the messianic status of Jesus. The verse also echoes 2 Sam. 6:9, although the understanding of Mary as the ark is less than apparent (R. E. Brown 1993: 344; contra Laurentin 1964: 91–94).
Luke 1:46–55
The Magnificat belongs to the tradition of Jewish hymns in the Second Temple period where both the form and content draw on a variety of OT hymns. Schürmann (1990–1994: 1:71) considers this a combination of an eschatological hymn and a personal thanksgiving psalm, but such a distinction dissolves in postexilic material. In terms of content, the closest parallel probably is in the Song of Hannah in 1 Sam. 2:1–10 (see Haupt 1904), where one finds the theme of deliverance as the Holy God of Israel looks upon the humble state of his maidservant. In both texts this personal concern is transformed into the general theme of reversal as God lifts up the poor and humbles the powerful ones. Others have pointed to the significance of a number of psalms behind this song (cf. Pss. 34; 35; 89; 103; see Goulder 1989: 1:228). The Psalms of Solomon provides a later parallel where one finds the appearance of nearly every phrase in the Magnificat. Instead of hypothesizing a common Pharisaic source (Bovon 2002: 56), however, it seems best to see both as reflecting the tendency to compose hymnic material using the language of Israel’s Scripture (cf. Qumran Hodayot).
1:46–47
The language is reminiscent of that of the psalmist (esp. Ps. 34:1–3 [33:2–4 LXX]), although the parallelism between “soul” (psychē) and “spirit” (pneuma) appears frequently only in later material (cf. Isa. 26:9; Job 12:10; Dan. 3:39, 86 [LXX]; Wis. 15:11; see D. R. Jones 1968: 20). The response of Mary also recalls the response of Hannah in 1 Sam. 2:1. The statement “and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (kai ēgalliasen to pneuma mou epi tō theō tō sōtēri mou) uses liturgical language as found in Hab. 3:18: “Yet I will rejoice in the LORD; I will exult in the God of my salvation” (egō de en tō kyriō agalliasomai, charēsomai epi tō theō tō sōtēri mou) (see Creed 1930: 303).
1:48
The reference to “lowliness” (tapeinōsis) has been taken as a reference to the humiliation suffered by the betrothed virgin who became pregnant (cf. Deut. 22:23–24; see Schaberg 1987: 100; Robbins 1994: 183–84), but neither the context nor its wider parallels with OT birth accounts support this reading. A closer parallel is found in 1 Sam. 1:11, where the term appears in reference to the reversal of the fortunes of Hannah in her pregnancy. As in the Song of Hannah in 1 Sam. 2:1–10, however, tapeinōsis can also refer to the humiliation of the oppressed people of God (Deut. 26:7; 1 Sam. 9:16; 1 Macc. 3:51; 3 Macc. 2:12; see Green 1992: 470). This connection between the fortunes of the individual and the fate of God’s people is best expressed in 4 Ezra 9:45, where the blessings bestowed upon the barren Zion are taken as a sign of God’s care for Israel’s “low estate” (tapeinōsis). The appearance of the title “the Mighty One” (ho dynatos) in the very next verse in both works (Luke 1:49; 4 Ezra 9:46) points to the relevance of this context for understanding the use of the term tapeinōsis here. Not to be missed is the significance of the reversal of the fortunes of “the poor” (ptōchos) throughout this Gospel (cf. Luke 4:18; 6:20–22; 7:22; 14:13, 21; 16:20–22).
1:49
In the OT, the “Mighty One” (ho dynatos) is used to refer to God the warrior (cf. Zeph. 3:17; see D. R. Jones 1968: 23), and “great things” (megala) recalls the mighty deeds of God during the exodus event (Deut. 10:21). References to the “holy” (hagion) name of God also appear most often in the depiction of God’s work in the new-exodus event (cf. Isa. 47:4; 57:15; Ezek. 36:22–25; Mal. 1:11; Wis. 10:20).
1:50
The expression “his mercy” (to eleos autou) presupposes the covenantal relationship between God and his people, and the affirmation that “his mercy is for those who fear him” belongs to the language of Israel’s liturgical traditions (cf. Ps. 103:17 [102:17 LXX]; Pss. Sol. 2:33).
1:51
In both the exodus (Exod. 6:1, 6; Deut. 3:24; 7:19) and new-exodus traditions (Isa. 51:5, 9; 53:1; cf. 30:30) one finds the use of the imagery of the arm/hand of God in reference to the power of God (see Seely 1990). In this case, a closer allusion can be identified in Ps. 88:11 LXX, a verse that departs from the MT: “You brought down the proud as one that is slain, and with the arm of your power you scattered your enemies” (sy etapeinōsas hōs traumatian hyperēphanon kai en tō brachioni tēs dynameōs sou dieskorpisas tous echthrous sou). This allusion may be significant in light of the royal messianic interpretation of this psalm in Jewish traditions (b. Sanh. 97a; Gen. Rab. 22:11; Exod. Rab. 13:1; Tg. Ps. 89:51–52; see Juel 1988: 104–5). The use of the aorist tense here (and elsewhere in the Magnificat) can be taken as an affirmation of the certainty of God’s eschatological acts (Farris: 1985: 114–16; Bock 1994–1996: 155), especially when the perfective (rather than the temporal) aspect of the aorist is recognized (cf. Porter [1993: 132–33], who nonetheless sees the past as providing the basis for 1:51–53).
1:52
In its setting as a response to God’s blessings in relation to the gift of a child, this verse easily reminds one of the Song of Hannah (esp. 1 Sam. 2:7–8). Nevertheless, the theme of reversal is found throughout the OT to the extent that the expression hypsōsen tapeinous (“he lifted up the lowly”) “may be said to be a stylized, conventional expression (cf. [LXX] Ezek. 21:26; Esth. 1:1; Job 5:11; Ps. 87[88]:15; Isa. 2:22; 10:33)” (D. R. Jones 1968: 25). This reversal motif survives in postbiblical Jewish traditions (Sib. Or. 13:3; Ahiqar 150). The adjective tapeinous (“the lowly”) is not simply a socioeconomic status label, but is one that refers to the oppressed people of God (cf. 1:48). This text does not, however, support a narrower reference to the Anawim of the Qumran community (see 1QM XIV, 10–11) (contra R. E. Brown 1993: 350–55, 359).
1:53
General OT conceptual parallels can be found for the filling of the hungry with good things (cf. 1 Sam. 2:5; Ps. 107:9; 146:7) and the sending of the rich away empty (cf. 1 Sam. 2:5; Job 15:29; Jer. 17:11) (see Bock 1994–1996: 157), but precise allusions cannot be identified.
1:54–55
Three specific OT passages provide the context for this conclusion to the Magnificat: Isa. 41:8–9; Ps. 98:3 (97:3 LXX); Mic. 7:20. All three make the connection between the Abrahamic promises and God’s redemptive act for his people (see Lampe 1993: 76–77). Isaiah 41:8–9 stands out with an explicit reference to Israel as “my servant” (pais mou) (cf. Isa. 42:1; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) together with the use of the same verb as in Luke 1:54, antilambanomai (“to help”). In its Isaianic context this oracle sees the eschatological role of Israel as that which will fulfill the original call to Abraham. The psalmist contributes to the expression “in remembrance of his mercy” (mnēsthēnai eleous; cf. emnēsthē tou eleous autou [Ps. 97:3 LXX]) in a similar setting where the victorious God of Israel will reveal himself in fulfillment of “his steadfast love and faithfulness to the house of Israel” (Ps. 97:3a LXX). A similar set of ideas (mercy, promise/oath to our ancestors, Abraham) is found also in the final verse of Micah (7:20), which points to the eschatological hope of God’s final delivery of Jacob/Israel.
The reference to Abraham in this verse paves the way for the role of Abraham in Luke-Acts. This symbol is used not only in reference to the promises of old (cf. Luke 1:72–73; Acts 3:13) but also in the redefinition of God’s people whereby through the use of the reversal motif the people of God are no longer defined on the basis of physical descent (cf. Luke 3:8–9; 13:28; 16:19–30; 19:9–10; Acts 3:25).
1:57–58
The expression “the time came for Elizabeth to give birth” (ho chronos tou tekein autēn) echoes the birth of Esau and Jacob in Gen. 25:24: “her [Rebekah’s] time to give birth was at hand” (eplērōthēsan hai hēmerai tou tekein autēn), and the theme of rejoicing also finds its parallel in OT birth accounts (cf. Gen. 21:6; see R. E. Brown 1993: 375). The theme of mercy connects this birth account with God’s wider expression of mercy toward Israel (1:50, 54).
1:59
According to the OT, the rite of circumcision was to take place on the eighth day after birth (Gen. 17:12; 21:4; Lev. 12:3). Whereas the naming of a child usually takes place during the time of birth (Gen. 25:24–26; 29:31–35), Abram received his name “Abraham” when he was circumcised as an adult (Gen. 17:5, 23). In light of the significance of circumcision as a sign of the Abrahamic covenant, it is tempting to see John’s (and Jesus’ [cf. 2:21]) reception of name during the rite of circumcision as an attempt to make a connection between Abraham and the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises (cf. 1:55). The Lukan use of the expression “covenant of circumcision” (Acts 7:8) may lend support to this reading. This verse does not, however, explicitly affirm that the naming of the child on the eighth day was the widely accepted practice of first-century Palestinian Jews.
1:66
Hebraic expressions were used in the phrases ethento . . . en tē kardia autōn (“placed . . . in their hearts”; see 1 Sam. 21:12 [21:13 LXX]; 2 Sam. 13:20; Mal. 2:2; cf. Luke 2:19, 51) and cheir kyriou (“the hand of the Lord”; see Deut. 2:15 [cheir theou, “hand of God”]; Ezek. 8:1; 37:1; cf. Acts 11:21; 13:11) (see Creed 1930: 25; Bock 1994–1996: 170).
1:67
The filling with “the Holy Spirit” and the appearance of “prophecy” point to the arrival of a significant period of salvation history when the mighty acts of God are evident to all (cf. Isa. 32:14–17; 44:1–4). The Lukan commentary on such prophetic activities is provided in Acts 2, where the quotation from Joel 2:28–32 is used to describe the arrival of the eschatological era. God’s people in this era will experience the power of the Spirit, and thus they will be described as the “sons of the prophets” (Acts 3:24–25) (see comments on 1:5–2:52 above).
Luke 1:68–79
As words of prophecy, the Benedictus focuses not on John the individual, but on God and his mighty acts on behalf of his people. In this portrayal of the work of God, the promises to David and Abraham are again evoked. When the role of John is addressed (1:76–79), it is his relation with Jesus that is noted. In this section, Isaiah provides the language through which the ministries of John and Jesus are articulated.
1:68
The opening blessing resembles the blessing formula found in the Psalter, where it ends three of the books (Ps. 41:13; 72:18; 106:48). The location of the formula at the beginning of a hymn is characteristic of the postbiblical hymnic tradition in Qumran (cf. 1QHa XIII, 20; XVIII, 14; XIX, 27, 29, 32; XXII bottom, 15; see D. R. Jones 1968: 28). The expression “blessed be the Lord God of Israel” (eulogētos kyrios ho theos tou Israēl) is almost identical to 1 Kings 1:48: “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel” (eulogētos kyrios ho theos Israēl). Significantly, this occurs in the context of the discussion of the Davidic heir (cf. 1 Kings 8:15; see Bock 1994: 70–71; Strauss 1995: 98–99). The connection to the house of David reappears in the final part of this verse (“he brought redemption for his people,” epoiēsen lytrōsin tō laō autou) if Ps. 111:9 [110:9 LXX] (“he sent redemption to his people,” lytrōsin apesteile tō laō autou) can be identified as the Scripture context behind it (see Creed 1930: 305; Ravens 1995: 38). This paves the way for 1:69, where the Davidic connection will be made explicit.
The verb episkeptomai (“visit”) or its cognate noun is used in the OT to refer to God’s presence in judgment (Ps. 89:32 [88:33 LXX]; Sir. 2:14) and in redemptive acts that evoke the exodus event (Exod. 3:16; 4:31; 13:19; 30:12; Isa. 23:17; Ps. 80:14 [79:15 LXX]; 106:4 [105:4 LXX]). In postbiblical material this terminology came to signify the eschatological “visit” of God (Wis. 3:7; Pss. Sol. 3:11; 10:4; 11:6; 15:12) (see Bovon 2002: 72). In Luke’s Gospel this vocabulary is used in reference to the arrival of the eschatological era when God delivers Israel (Luke 1:78; 7:16; 19:44) while providing a redefinition for his own people (Acts 15:14).
1:69
The “horn” is a symbol of might (Deut. 33:17), and the expression “horn of salvation” (keras sōtērias), as understood in the context of the Davidic promises, finds its closest parallel in keras sōtērias mou (“horn of my salvation”) as it appears in 2 Sam. 22:3; Ps. 18:2 (17:3 LXX). Significantly, both texts are attributed to David. Similar phrases that may have contributed to the use of this expression here includes keras christou autou (“horn of his anointed” [1 Sam. 2:10]); keras tō Dauid (“horn for David” [Ps. 132:17 (131:17 LXX)]); keras panti tō oikō Israēl (“horn for the entire whole of Israel” [Ezek. 29:21]) (see Ravens 1995: 37; Strauss 1995: 99–100). This language survived in Jewish liturgical tradition, as is evident in the Babylonian version of the fifteenth benediction in the Shemoneh Esreh: “May he spring up quickly the Branch of David and exalt his horn for your salvation. Blessed are you, Lord, you who spring up the horn of salvation” (see Manns 1992).
In the OT David is almost never called a pais, “servant” (but see 1 Chron. 17:4 LXX A: dauid ton paida [B: doulon] mou, “David my servant”; cf. 1 Macc. 4:30). In light of 1:54, where the term pais is used to describe Israel, “David” could be understood as a symbol for Israel, which awaits the fulfillment of its eschatological hope, via Jesus the pais (cf. Acts 3:13, 26; 4:27). In Acts 4:25 the same label is likewise used for David in the context of prayer.
1:71
The language of the deliverance from “our enemies” and “those who hate us” belongs to the Psalter, where the fate of the individual merges with the fate of God’s people (cf. Ps. 18:17; 106:10). In the evoking of these psalms, the deliverance of Israel is connected with the hope that rests on the house of David (cf. 2 Sam. 22:18). A similar articulation of the hope of Israel is found in 4Q174 1 I (see McNicol 1998: 30–32), but they diverge on the identity of the “enemies” of Israel and the goal of such an eschatological program. For Luke, instead of the temple cult, the enemies are those who opposed the “way” of the Lord as embodied in the life and ministry of Jesus. Instead of simply replacing the temple cult with the “house” of the Lord, Jesus’ suffering and exaltation leads to the availability of salvation for all who accept him.
1:72
Covenantal language serves to bring the Davidic hope and the Abrahamic promise together (cf. 1:78), but the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises by a future Davidic king is not without OT precedents (cf. Ps. 72:17; see Clements 1967: 47–60). The first part, “He has shown the mercy [eleos] promised to our ancestors,” echoes Mic. 7:20, “You will show faithfulness to Jacob and unswerving loyalty [eleos] to Abraham, as you have sworn to our ancestors from the days of old,” although the promise of “mercy” is not limited to this passage (cf. Gen. 24:12; Judg. 1:24; 8:35; Ruth 1:8; 1 Sam. 20:8; see Schürmann 1990–1994: 1:88; Bovon 2002: 74). This final section of Micah is particularly important, however, as it provides the conceptual framework for the various elements in the immediate context of 1:72. These include the preceding note on the victory over God’s enemies (1:71; Mic. 7:8–10) and the explicit mentioning of Abraham that follows (1:72; Mic. 7:20). These parallels show the widespread availability of such a complex of ideas (cf. Apoc. Zeph. 11:1–4; T. Levi 15:4; T. Ash. 7:7; see Lampe 1993: 85).
The second part, “and has remembered his holy covenant,” recalls the mighty acts of God during the exodus event: “God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Exod. 2:24; cf. Ps. 105:8–9; 106:45). Significantly, it is within the expectation of the new exodus that the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants find their fulfillment (Acts 7:5; 13:34).
1:73
The “oath” sworn to Abraham may allude to the original promise in Gen. 22:16–17; 26:3. Nevertheless, this promise and its later renderings focus largely on the promise of the land (Gen. 50:24; Exod. 13:5, 11; 33:1; Num. 11:12; 14:16; Ps. 105:9–11; Jer. 11:5), although variations can be found where the land does not play such a central role (Deut. 4:31; 7:8; 8:18; 13:17; 28:9; 29:13) (see Creed 1930: 26, 305; Lampe 1993: 84). The verses that follow (1:74–79; cf. Acts 7:5–7) would provide a reappropriation of these traditions.
1:74–75
Deliverance from the hands of the enemies is a theme that was introduced earlier (see 1:71; cf. Ps. 18:17; 106:10). The purpose of divine deliverance is formulated with exodus language (“Let my people go, so that they may worship me in the wilderness” [Exod. 7:16; cf. Josh. 24:14]) together with a possible allusion to the Davidic promise: “If you will walk before me, as David your father walked, with integrity of heart and uprightness [en hosiotēti kardias kai en euthytēti] . . . then I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever, as I promised your father David, saying, ‘There shall not fail you a successor on the throne of Israel’” (1 Kings 9:4–5) (see R. E. Brown 1993: 388).
With this verse, the attention now turns to the role of John the Baptist. This verse recalls 1:17, where one also finds allusions to Mal. 3:1 and Isa. 40:3. It also paves the way for 3:4–6 with the lengthy quotation from Isa. 40. In light of 1:16–17, the “Lord” (kyrios) is most likely a reference to God himself. The giving of a meaningful name or title also characterizes the prophecies of Isaiah (cf. 1:26; 57:4; 58:12; 60:14; see D. R. Jones 1968: 35). The title “prophet of the Most High” appears in T. Levi 8:15 (R. E. Brown 1993: 372), but Christian influence on this text cannot be ruled out.
1:78
The exact phrase “tender mercy of our God” (splanchna eleous theou hēmōn) does not appear in the LXX, but the idea of the deliverance of God as an act of his covenantal faithfulness is rooted in OT thought (cf. Ps. 89:28; 130:7–8; Isa. 54:7–8). Similar ideas can be found in Jewish traditions (cf. T. Zeb. 8:2; see R. E. Brown 1993: 388).
The word anatolē in the LXX had been used to translate the Hebrew ṣemaḥ, “sprout” or “branch” (Ezek. 16:7; Zech. 6:12), a word that appears in the context of the hope for the Davidic heir (Jer. 23:5; Zech. 3:8; 6:12; cf. Jer. 33:15; Isa. 11:1–10). This usage survives in Jewish traditions (cf. 4Q174; 4Q252; see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 387). In the LXX the cognate verb anatellō is also used to refer to sunrise or the imagery of light (Num. 24:17; Mal. 3:20 [4:2 ET]). This “light” imagery seems to fit the Lukan context better. First, the phrase “from on high” (ex hypsous) fits well with the imagery of the rising sun. Second, the theme of light and darkness in its immediate context (1:79) also favors this reading. Third, in Isaiah the verb anatellō frequently appears in contexts of God’s eschatological restoration (Isa. 42:9; 43:19; 44:4, 26; 45:8; 60:1; 61:11; 66:14; cf. 2 Pet. 1:19; see Ravens 1995: 39), and this may have also contributed to the use of this imagery of dawn here. This “light” imagery also survives in Jewish traditions that point to the eschatological hope of Israel (see Schlier 1964: 353; Bock 1994–1996: 192). Although this “light” imagery may be prominent behind the word anatolē, in light of the strong Davidic messianic reference and the probable connections between the “light/star” and “branch” imageries in early Christian traditions (the use of anatolē may point to testimonia traditions [see esp. Gen. 49:10–11; Num. 24:17; Isa. 11:1, 10], see Albl 1999: 208–16), one cannot rule out a secondary reference in the use of this word.
1:79
The wording of the first part of the verse, “to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death” (epiphanai tois en skotei kai skia thanatou kathēmenois), echoes Ps. 106:10 LXX: “sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death” (kathēmenous en skotei kai skia thanatou). In terms of context, however, Isa. 9:2 provides a better parallel: “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who lived in a land of deep darkness—on them light has shined” (see Creed 1930: 306; D. R. Jones 1968: 39). The idea of guidance in the second half of the verse is further paralleled by Isa. 42:6–7: “I have given you as . . . a light to the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness.” This is consistent with the reading of 1:78 that portrays the anatolē as one who provides light for those in darkness (see Strauss 1995: 104–5).
The characterization of the way as one of “peace” (eirēnē) introduces a significant Lukan theme. This word occurs fourteen times in Luke, the majority of which are in uniquely Lukan passages (1:79; 2:14, 29; 7:50; 10:5–6; 14:32; 19:42; 24:36). In passages with Synoptic parallels, the word also appears only in Luke (11:21 [Matt. 12:29; Mark 3:27]; 19:38 [Matt. 21:9; Mark 11:10]) (see Swartley 1983: 25–26). In the OT the concept of peace (šālôm) is not limited to the social and political realms; it is used also to symbolize the arrival of the eschatological era. S. Talmon (1997: 114) rightly notes that “the apex of biblical Israel’s hope for peace is reached in prophetic visions which transcend the horizon of human experience.” This is best expressed in the work of Isaiah (e.g., Isa. 11:6–9; 65:17–25; cf. “the way of peace” in Isa. 59:8). In light of the Lukan uses of the peace motif, the meaning of the word here should not be limited to the realm of interpersonal relationship. As the conclusion of the Benedictus, the word evokes the prophetic hopes for the eschatological era, the presence of which affects the entirety of humanity.
As the birth announcements model the birth accounts of OT heroes, this verse likewise uses OT language to describe the growth of John the Baptist and Jesus (2:40, 52; cf. Gen. 21:8 [Isaac]; Judg. 13:24 [Samson]; 1 Sam. 2:21, 26 [Samuel]).
Some (Nestle 1910; R. E. Brown 1993: 417–18; Bovon 2002: 83) have detected an allusion to Ps. 87:6 (86:6 LXX), where the targumic version points to the raising up of a king, and the Quinta Greek version explicitly mentions the census context: “In the census of the peoples, this one will be born there” (cf. Eusebius, Commentary on the Psalms [PG 23:1052C]). It is doubtful, however, that Luke was aware of the Quinta traditions and the even later targumic text.
2:3
The phrase hekastos eis tēn heautou polin (“each one to his own town”) recalls a similar phrase in Lev. 25:10: hekastos eis tēn patrian autou (“each one to his own family”), especially when the word patria (“family”) also appears in 2:4 (see Kilpatrick 1989). An allusion to the Jubilee context is possible especially in light of Luke 4:16–30, where both the Jubilee and the references to one’s own “native land” (patris [4:23–24]) are found. Nevertheless, the historical practice of returning to one’s hometown in the Roman imperial period is sufficient in explaining the appearance of this note in this context (cf. P. Lond. 904; see McRay 1991: 155).
2:4, 11
In the OT the label “city of David” normally is used in reference to Jerusalem (e.g., 2 Sam. 5:7, 9; 6:10, 12, 16; 1 Chron. 11:5–7). The closest parallel in the LXX is in 1 Sam. 20:6, where Bethlehem is referred to as “his city.” In light of Mic. 5:1–2 (4:14–5:1 MT), where the connection between Bethlehem and the coming Davidic ruler is made, one can agree with Strauss (1995: 110) that this is a “descriptive phrase” that aims at emphasizing the “Davidic connection to Bethlehem.”
2:6
As in 1:57 above, the wording echoes Gen. 25:24.
2:7
In early Christian traditions prōtotokos (“firstborn”) became a christological title in reference to Christ’s redemptive role in salvation history (cf. Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15, 18; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 1:5). In this context, however, this word may simply recall the stories of the patriarchs (e.g., Gen. 25:25; 27:19, 32; 35:23; 38:6–7; 41:51; 46:8; 48:18), although the focus on the right of inheritance is implicit in this emphasis on birth order (cf. Exod. 13:12; Deut. 21:15–17). In any case, the use of this term here seems to describe the unique status and role of Jesus and not his relative position in relation to his younger brothers and sisters (contra Bock 1987: 76).
It is unclear whether the reference to phatnē (“manger”) alludes to Isa. 1:3 (“The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master’s crib [phatnē]; but Israel does not know, my people do not understand”), but this reading can already be found in early Christian works (e.g., Sib. Or. 8:477). If this Isaianic reference can be established, then the eschatological era is portrayed as one in which God’s people will turn to their Lord. The exact identity of this people will be further defined in Luke’s two-volume work.
In light of the emphasis on the Davidic dynasty in Luke 1–2, it is tempting to follow J. W. Olley (1992) in seeing an allusion to 2 Sam. 7:6 LXX, “I have not lived in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have been moving about in a lodge [katalyma] and a tent” (cf. 1 Chron. 17:5), in the use of the word katalyma (“inn”). This would fit quite well in this Lukan context where one finds references to “the city of David” and “the house and family of David” (Luke 2:4). Nevertheless, this word alone is insufficient to establish this connection, since it also appears in the LXX in various contexts unrelated to the Davidic promises (cf. Exod. 4:24; 15:13; 1 Sam. 1:18; 9:22; Jer. 14:8; 40:12 [33:12 MT]; Ezek. 23:21).
Luke 2:8–14
Individual elements in this passage find their parallels in Isa. 9:2–7 (9:1–6 LXX/MT): light in the midst of darkness (2:8–9; Isa. 9:2); joy (2:10; Isa. 9:3); birth of a child (2:11; Isa. 9:6); Davidic messiah (2:11; Isa. 9:7); eschatological era of peace (2:14; Isa. 9:6–7) (see Meyer 1964: 42; Westermann 1971: 320; Doble 1996: 28–29). To this list one could add that this eschatological era will involve the nations/Gentiles, as they too will witness the glory of the Lord (2:10; Isa. 9:1). Significantly, this message of the birth of a mighty ruler that ushers in an era of peace is situated in a chapter that opens with the mention of “Emperor Augustus” (2:1).
2:8
Many have pointed to the “tower of the flock” in Mic. 4:8 as providing the context for understanding the reference to shepherds here. This phrase appears also in Gen. 35:21, and in the contexts of both texts one finds references to Bethlehem (Gen. 35:19; Mic. 5:2) (see Creed 1930: 31–32; Meyer 1964: 42; R. E. Brown 1993: 420). The Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 35:21 provides an explicit messianic reference that strengthens the relevance of these texts: “And Jacob proceeded and spread his tent beyond the tower of flocks, the place from whence it is to be that the king Meshiha will be revealed at the end of the days.” Bock’s (1987: 76–77; 1994–1996: 226) objection to this reading, based on the fact that these texts seem to refer primarily to Jerusalem, fails because of the close connection between Jerusalem and Bethlehem in Mic. 4–5. Moreover, one wonders if the connection between Micah and Luke 2 has to rest primarily on the reference to the “tower of the flock.” The imagery of shepherding (Mic. 5:4) together with the reference to Bethlehem in the context of the promises of the “ruler over Israel” (Mic. 5:2) evokes the memory of King David, who “tend[s] his father’s sheep at Bethlehem” (1 Sam. 17:15). It is quite appropriate, therefore, to find the Davidic messiah portrayed “as a ruler born in shepherd-country” (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 395; cf. Ravens 1995: 42–43). The critical departure in Luke 2, in which Jesus is portrayed not as a shepherd but as one visited by the shepherds, should deter one from arguing for more specific connections between the two texts. The significance of Mic. 5 in the portrayal of the birth of Jesus in early Christian traditions is further affirmed by the explicit use of Mic. 5:2 in Matt. 2:6.
2:9
For the “angel of the Lord,” see 1:11 above. The “glory of the Lord” signifies the presence of God himself (e.g., Exod. 16:10; 24:16–17; 29:43; 40:34–35; Lev. 9:6; Num. 14:10; 16:19, 42; 20:6; 1 Kings 8:11; Ps. 138:5; Isa. 58:8; Ezek. 1:28; Tob. 12:15). Fear is the typical response in the presence of the divine (see 1:12 above).
2:10
As in 1:12–13, the angelic message begins with a “fear not” formula, and also the verb euangelizomai recalls 1:19.
2:11
In 1:47, in the liturgical language of Hab. 3:18, the title sōtēr (“savior”) is applied to God. Luke here introduces Christ as the sōtēr in the context of his presentation as the Davidic messiah. In the LXX the title is applied to Israel’s deliverer (Judg. 3:9, 15; 12:3; Neh. 9:27), but most often it points to God himself (Deut. 32:15; Ps. 23:5 [24:5 MT]; 24:5 [25:5 MT]; Isa. 12:2; 17:10; 45:15, 21) (see Bock 1994–1996: 217). As in the case of euangelizomai, Luke’s use of this title may also be a reaction to the imperial propaganda that labels Augustus as the sōtēr of the world (see Priene Inscription [OGIS #458]).
The exact combination of the two titles christos kyrios (“Messiah, the Lord”) without a conjunction is unusual. It appears nowhere else in the NT, and in the LXX it appears only in some Greek translations of Lam. 4:20 as a mistranslation of the Hebrew mĕšîaḥ YHWH (“the LORD’s messiah”). The Greek word christos, together with its Hebrew equivalent mĕšîaḥ, refers to “the anointed one.” In the OT one finds the anointing of Israel’s kings (1 Sam. 9:16; 24:6), but the title also appears in priestly (Lev. 4:3, 5, 16) and prophetic (1 Kings 19:16; Ps. 105:15; Isa. 61:1) contexts. The royal messianic figure is described in detail in Pss. Sol. 17, a chapter where one also finds the combination title christos kyrios (Pss. Sol. 17:32; cf. 18:7). Although christos came to be used as a proper name, especially in the second volume of Luke’s writings (e.g., Acts 2:38; 3:6; 4:10), the immediate context clearly points to a Davidic messianic reading of this title.
Prior to this verse in Luke, the word kyrios is most often used to refer to God himself (e.g., Luke 1:6, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, 28, 32, 46, 76), although in 1:43 Mary is called “the mother of my Lord.” This early Christian use of kyrios to refer to God can be traced back to the LXX (Cullmann 1963: 200–201), and there is evidence for the use of this term in pre-Christian Palestinian Judaism (see Fitzmyer 1975). In early Christian circles the Hellenistic context may also have contributed to the popularity of this title (cf. Acts 25:26). In Luke 1–2, however, the Jewish usage dominates as Luke highlights the authority of Jesus as one that equals that of God. The use of the three titles “Savior, Messiah, Lord” brought out both the active and the passive connotations of Jesus’ authority: the Savior and Messiah is one who delivers God’s people, while the Lord is one who is to be obeyed and honored (Marshall 1988: 145).
2:14
Unlike “glory of the Lord” in 2:9, the ascription of glory to God here belongs to the liturgical language of postbiblical times (cf. 1 Esd. 9:8; Bar. 2:17–18; 4 Macc. 1:12; see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 410). Peace, on the other hand, is a typical Lukan theme that draws on the OT (cf. 1:79). The combination of the utterance of praise and the concern for the well-being of God’s people within the expression of divine favor can already be found in the eschatological poem of Pss. Sol. 8:33–34.
2:19
In exploring the significance of Mary’s treasuring and pondering the words of the angel (through the mouths of the shepherds), attempts have been made to identify the conceptual precedence of this verse: apocalyptic (cf. Dan. 4:28 LXX; 7:28 Θ; L.A.E. Apocalypse 3:3; see Neirynck 1960: 51–57), prophetic (cf. Gen. 37:11; see Meyer 1964: 43), and wisdom (cf. Ps. 119:11; Prov. 3:1; Sir. 13:12–13; 39:1–3; see R. E. Brown 1993: 430). The wording, especially in the version of Luke 2:51 (hē mētēr autou dietērei panta ta rhēmata, “his mother treasured all these things”), closely resembles that of Gen. 37:11 (ho de patēr autou dietērēsen to rhēma, “his father kept [or treasured] the matter”). In both, the parent awaits the unfolding of God’s work in the child. Nevertheless, the fact that the two Lukan verses (2:19, 51) differ in form may imply that Luke did not have one particular text in mind. The various other conceptual contexts suggested also point to the wide availability of similar ideas and formulations.
Luke 2:21–40
The presentation of Jesus in the temple on the eighth day after his birth echoes the presentation of Samuel “to the house of the LORD at Shiloh” when “the child was young” (1 Sam. 1:24) (see R. E. Brown 1993: 450–51; Plymale 1994: 28). The phrase “to present him to the Lord” (2:22) recalls a similar note in 1 Sam. 1:22, and the aged Simeon brings to mind the figure of Eli. The rite outlined in 2:22–24 may also echo the tradition that identifies Samuel as a Nazirite (see comments below). The summary statement that concludes this chapter (“And Jesus increased in wisdom and in years, and in divine and human favor”) likewise draws on 1 Sam. 2:26: “Now the boy Samuel continued to grow both in stature and in favor with the LORD and with the people.” As pointed out earlier (see introductory comments for 1:5–2:52), parallels with the Samuel narrative serve to draw attention to the Davidic royal traditions as Jesus is presented as the Davidic messiah, who will bring deliverance to God’s people.
2:21
As in the case of John the Baptist, Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day according to OT customs (see comments on 1:59).
2:22–23
These verses are significant because they contain numerous references to the law of Moses together with the account of Jesus’ first visit to the Jerusalem temple. A quotation formula appears twice, but an explicit, direct quotation is found only in the next verse (2:24).
Verse 22 begins with the phrase “when the time came for their purification.” The description of this rite will continue in v. 24, but what attracts attention here is the use of the third-person plural pronoun autōn (“their”). In Lev. 12 only the mother who had recently given birth is required to go through the rite of purification. This reading is supported by the best witnesses (ℵ A B et al.). A number of manuscripts have omitted the pronoun (435 bopt Irlat). Codex D and some other versions have the masculine pronoun autou (“his”), while the reading in itpt and vg could be read as either a masculine or feminine singular pronoun. The weight of the external evidence makes the lectio dfficilior, autōn, the most probable reading. This plural pronoun could refer to Jesus and Mary, as suggested already by Origen, and Creed (1930: 38–39) supports this reading by suggesting that Luke might have misunderstood the stipulations of Exod. 13:1–2, where the sanctification of the firstborn is to be accomplished by the rite of purification in Lev. 12. The second part of the verse strongly argues against this, however, since the implied plural subject has to be Joseph and Mary: “they brought him up to Jerusalem” (cf. 2:27, 33, 34, 39; see Robert 1990). The possible reason for Joseph’s inclusion can be understood within the development of the Levitical rite.
Immediately after the introduction of the rite of purification, Luke turns his attention to the dedication of the firstborn (2:23). Luke begins with a quotation formula, “as it is written in the law of the Lord” (kathōs gegraptai en nomō kyriou), but what follows is not a direct quotation from the OT: “Every firstborn male shall be designated as holy to the Lord.” Conceptual parallels can be identified in Exod. 13:2, 12, 15, although these wordings are quite different: the key term prōtotokos (“firstborn”) that these Exodus passages share does not appear in this Lukan passage, whereas the Lukan hagion . . . klēthēsetai (“shall be called holy”) finds no parallel in these three verses. Against the conclusion that this verse has “a non-Hellenistic origin” (Bock 1994–1996: 237), it seems that it is not Luke’s intention to provide an exact rendering of the OT text.
Exodus 13 lays out the requirements for all firstborn sons of Israel to be consecrated to the Lord as a response to the sparing of the lives of the firstborn Israelite males during the Passover event. This legislation is further developed in Num. 18, where the Levites will serve on behalf of the firstborn sons. The parents of these firstborns must in turn redeem them by paying “five shekels of silver” (Num. 18:16).
The mention of these two rites together has led many to conclude that Luke “seems to have confused them” (R. E. Brown 1993: 447). More likely, however, is that Luke is simply providing a summarized representation of these rites (see Schürmann 1990–1994: 121–22) while focusing on Jesus’ (and his parents’) obedience to the law. First, the thrice-mentioned nomos in these verses serves to highlight Luke’s intention in describing the observances of these rites. Second, the lack of mention of the five-shekels redemption price also shows that the detailed portrayal of these rites is not Luke’s primary intention. Moreover, this omission also points to the focus on Jesus as the one wholly devoted to God. The use of the term hagion (“holy”) in describing Jesus further fulfills the promises to Mary concerning him in 1:35: “The child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.” This interpretation of Exod. 13 in terms of one’s total devotion to God is not foreign to Hellenistic Jewish exegetical traditions (e.g., Philo, Sacrifices 97; Spec. Laws 1.248). The presentation to the Lord during the rite of purification (2:22) is thus connected to the rite of consecration, when Jesus’ lifelong dedication to God is emphasized (2:23).
Luke 2:24
This verse deserves separate treatment because it represents the first explicit OT quotation in Luke’s writings.
A. NT Context: Dedication to God. As noted above in the discussion of 2:22–23, this verse belongs to a summary paragraph that highlights Jesus’ (and his parents’) fulfillment of the requirements of the law. The precise combination of the two rites in these verses also serves to focus on the characterization of Jesus’ life and ministry as that which is entirely devoted to carrying out the plan of God. The rite of purification noted in 2:22 finds its completion in this verse, although this verse also may carry a secondary sense as it alludes to yet another rite of dedication. In the wider context 2:22–24 provide the context for the Nunc Dimittis (2:29–32), which outlines the significance of Jesus’ ministry in Isaianic terms.
B. Lev. 12:8 in Context. Leviticus 12 belongs to a wider section (Lev. 11–16) that deals with the issue of impurity. This chapter follows the rules of animal purities (chap. 11) and is related to the later discussion of genital discharges (chap. 15). Leviticus 12 in particular deals with impurity after childbirth. The birth of a son renders the mother unclean for seven days, and then she would go through a period of thirty-three days of blood purification. If she gives birth to a daughter, the time of uncleanness and blood purification is doubled. After this period of blood purification is completed, the mother is to present a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering. If she cannot afford a lamb, “she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering” (12:8). This set of offerings is required before the mother can return to the state of being “clean.”
C. Lev. 12:8 in Judaism. One of the earliest explicit comments on Lev. 12 is in Jub. 3:8–14 (see Schearing 2003: 431–32). In this text the origin of this stipulation is hypothesized in an attempt to explain the lengthier period of uncleanness and blood purification that a mother had to go through after giving birth to daughters rather than sons. In seeing the Garden of Eden as an archetypal temple, the author of Jubilees suggests that since Eve was created after Adam, and her entrance into the garden (i.e., temple) followed that of Adam, giving birth to a daughter would render a woman unclean (i.e., not being able to enter a sanctuary) for a longer period of time.
This concern to explain the differences in the lengths of the period of uncleanness and blood purification survives in other texts. In 4Q265 and 4Q266 the same solution is provided for this problem. Significantly, the implications of the Jubilees text is clearer here: Adam and Eve were rendered unclean through childbirth even though there is no mother present in this case. In a sense, then, those associated with the childbirth are also rendered unclean (see Baumgarten 1994: 5–6; Kugler 2003: 355–56). This would provide support for understanding the plural pronoun autōn in 2:22 as referring to Jesus and his mother, although the context makes it implausible (see comments on 2:22). One wonders if this can be extended to include the husband, who may be considered involved in the process of childbirth.
In rabbinic literature the discussion of this aspect of the stipulation continues. In addition, other details were discussed and debated. These include the exact nature of the “sin” that led to the requirement of a sin offering (cf. b. Nid. 31b) and the related question of the extent of the requirement of sexual abstinence after childbirth (cf. b. Ketub. 61b; see Schearing 2003: 435).
D. Textual Matters. The precise wording of this offering, zeugos trygonōn ē dyo nossous peristerōn (“a pair of doves or two young pigeons”), deviates slightly from that of LXX Lev. 12:8, dyo trygonas ē dyo neossous peristerōn (“two doves or two young pigeons”), although the meaning is identical (as in the MT: šĕtê tōrîm ʾô šěně běně yônâ). A closer verbal parallel can be identified in the description of the sin offering (of the poor) in Lev. 5:11 LXX: zeugos trygonōn ē dyo neossous peristerōn (“a pair of doves or two young pigeons”), although an earlier reference within the same chapter (5:7) is identical to Lev. 12:8 in wording. In terms of context where the rite of purification is concerned, Luke is most certainly quoting from Lev. 12:8. Nevertheless, Luke may also have Lev. 5:11 in mind, as sin offering is part of the rite of purification.
E. The Use of Lev. 12:8 in Luke 2:24. As in 2:22–23, the evocation of this Mosaic stipulation clearly points to Jesus’ (and his parents’) faithfulness to the observance of the law. The reason for the listing of the content of this offering is debated, however. First, the mention of “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons” may have been evoked because this serves as an alternative for those who “cannot afford a sheep” (Lev. 12:8a). Thus the emphasis is on the economic status of Jesus’ family. In light of the development of the narrative, many would also see this as reflecting Luke’s interest in the poor as he uses the reversal motif to describe the effect of the dawn of the eschatological era (see O’Toole 1983: 11; Barrett 1988: 235). Luke’s interest in the poor cannot be denied, but this emphasis does not exhaust the reason for the inclusion of this quotation in this context.
Noting that one of the “two turtledoves or two pigeons” is for a “sin offering” (Lev. 12:8), some have pointed to the need for Mary to be cleansed of her “sins” as one of the focuses of this text (see Schearing 2003: 400). Although this may have contributed to the later debate concerning the dogma of Mary’s “immaculate conception,” this text focuses rather on the faithfulness of Mary. The performance of the rite of purification draws attention to the fulfillment of the requirements of the law and not to the prior state of uncleanness.
More fruitful is the approach that sees this note on the content of the offering as echoing a similar rite for a Nazirite in the case of defilement. In this rite the defiled one “shall bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting” (Num. 6:10). Given that Samuel himself is a Nazirite (1 Sam. 1:11), this offering may carry added significance: the dedication of the firstborn to the Lord’s service in the model of Samuel (cf. 1 Sam. 1–2; see Marshall 1978: 117; Schürmann 1990–1994: 1:121–22; Bock 1994–1996: 234; Bovon 2002: 99). First, the parallels between the dedications of Samuel and Jesus have already been noted (see comments on 2:21–40 above), and the parallels between the two are extended to the entire Lukan birth narrative (Luke 1–2). As in the case of Samuel, the dedication of Jesus focuses not only on purity issues related to childbirth but also on the definition of his life and mission. Second, the model of Samuel’s dedication will be able to bring together the two rites mentioned above: dedication of the firstborn and the rite of purification after childbirth. The Nazirite rite fulfills the intent of the stipulation concerning the dedication of the firstborn, and the rite of purification draws attention to the sanctity required for service in the presence of God. After all, at stake is not Mary’s state of purity, but rather the mission of Jesus.
F. Theological Use. In ecclesiological terms this quotation draws attention to the continuity of salvation history. In fulfilling the requirements of the law, Jesus fulfills the past by bringing it to its climax. The thrice-repeated mention of the Torah in the context of the Jerusalem cult provides the setting in which the way to know the perfect will of God and the means through which one can approach him can be introduced. Situated squarely within the traditions of Israel, the significance of Jesus is not limited to the Israel of flesh, however. The connection between this passage and the Nunc Dimittis, which follows, is most striking when the mission to the Gentiles is announced through the promises of Isaiah.
Christologically, this passage introduces Jesus not simply as a firstborn, but rather as the “holy one” whose life fulfills those of all the firstborn of Israel in his dedication to the service and plan of God. The rest of the narrative will make this point abundantly clear.
2:25
In the LXX the expression “consolation of Israel” (paraklēsis tou Israēl) is found in the prophetic literature in reference to the promise of Israel’s restoration (cf. Jer. 38:9 LXX [31:9 MT]). In the writings of Luke a more specific context can be identified. The word paraklēsis appears most often in Isaiah, where it becomes a symbol for the arrival of the eschatological era when God fulfills his promises to Israel (Isa. 28:29; 30:7; 57:18; 66:11). Significantly, the verbal form, parakaleō, appears more than twenty-five times in Isaiah. Isaiah 40:1–11 can be considered as a summary of this message of consolation when the eschatological second exodus is expressed through the several appearances of parakaleō (40:1, 2, 11). Similarly, the reiteration of this message in Isa. 61:1–2 is also formulated with this key term. While Isa. 40 is evoked in the block quotation in Luke 3:4–6, Isa. 61 forms the basis of Jesus’ sermon in Nazareth in Luke 4:18–19. In its immediate context, 2:25 also paves the way for the fuller expression of the Isaianic program in the Nunc Dimittis.
2:27
The expression “the Lord’s Messiah” (ho christos kyriou) is an idiom used in the LXX (cf. 1 Sam. 24:7, 11 [24:6, 10 ET]; 26:9, 11, 16; see Bovon 2002: 101). It is not to be confused with a similar expression in 2:11 (christos kyrios), where the two stand in appositional relationship.
Luke 2:29–32
The Nunc Dimittis is formulated with language borrowed from Isaiah. These allusions point to the universal significance of God’s salvific plan for his own people. Christologically, the mission of Jesus is portrayed in the model of the Isaianic Suffering Servant.
2:29
The closest parallel to this verse is found in Gen. 15:15, sy de apeleusē pros tous pateras sou met’ eirēnēs (“you shall go to your ancestors in peace”), but the general sense is found elsewhere (cf. Num. 20:29; Tob. 3:6; 2 Macc. 7:9; see Creed 1930: 41; D. R. Jones 1968: 40). In light of the significance of the Lukan theme of peace that was introduced in 1:79 and 2:14, this “peace” should not be limited to an individualistic sense, as it is also “associated with the fulfillment of Israel’s messianic hopes” (Swartley 1983: 27). The eschatological tone of this statement also reflects the sentiments of Pss. Sol. 17:44: “Blessed are those born in those days to see the good fortune of Israel which God will bring to pass in the assembly of the tribes.”
2:30
In this verse, Luke uses the neuter sōtērion (“salvation”) instead of the feminine form, sōtēria, which he usually prefers (1:69, 71, 77; 19:9; Acts 4:12; 7:25; 13:26, 47; 16:17; 27:34). J. T. Carroll (1988: 47) suggests that since “salvation” is applied to “the child” (to paidion) of 2:27, the neuter form was used. A better solution is available when the other two instances of the neuter form are identified in the Lukan writings. The next appearance of this neuter noun comes in the quotation of Isa. 40:5 in Luke 3:6; its only other occurrence in the Lukan writings is in Acts 28:28, where Luke probably also had Isa. 40:5 in mind (see Pao 2000: 108). A reasonable assumption is that in 2:30 Luke is also alluding to Isa. 40:5, as it appears in Luke 3:6, a verse that also adopts the metaphor of vision: “and all flesh shall see the salvation of God” (opsetai pasa sarx to sōtērion tou theou). Other Isaianic parallels in 2:31–32 confirm this reading. In Jewish traditions conceptual parallels can be identified in Bar. 4:24 [cf. Isa. 52:10] and CD-B XX, 34 (D. R. Jones 1968: 41; Nolland 1989–1993: 120; R. E. Brown 1993: 458).
2:31
As in 2:30, the preparation of “salvation” may also be an allusion to the Isaianic quotation that appears in Luke 3, where both the verb hetoimazō (“prepare”) and the noun sōtērion (“salvation”) appear: “Prepare the way of the Lord” (hetoimasate tēn hodon kyriou [3:4]) . . . “and all flesh shall see the salvation of God” (opsetai pasa sarx to sōtērion tou theou [3:4, 6; cf. Isa. 40:3, 5]). This Isaianic allusion also affects how the second part of this verse is read: “in the presence of all peoples” (prosōpon pantōn tōn laōn). Although the singular laos (“people”) is a term most often applied to Israel in the LXX (translating the Heb. ʿam; see NIDNTT 2:796), in this verse the qualifying pantōn (“all”) with the plural laōn in the context where Isa. 40:5 is in view encourages readers to see the word as inclusive of Gentiles (cf. Isa. 52:10 without the use of laos). This “people” therefore includes both “Gentiles” (2:32a) and “Israel” (2:32b). The inclusion of the Gentiles within God’s elected ones is made explicit in Acts 15:14, where the singular laos is now applied to the Gentiles: “Simeon has related how God first looked favorably on the Gentiles, to take from among them a people [laon] for his name.”
2:32
The first part of the verse focuses on the significance of the dawn of salvation for the Gentiles: “a light for revelation to the Gentiles” (phōs eis apokalypsin ethnōn). The imagery of light echoes Isa. 49:6 LXX (idou tetheika se . . . eis phōs ethnōn tou einai se eis sōtērian heōs eschatou tēs gēs, “I set you . . . as a light to the nations, that you may bring salvation to the end of the earth” [cf. Isa. 42:6]), a verse quoted in Acts 13:47. The phrase “for revelation” (eis apokalypsin) may in turn echo Isa. 52:10 (kai apokalypsei kyrios ton brachiona autou ton hagion enōpion pantōn tōn ethnōn, “And the LORD shall reveal his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations”) and 56:1b (“soon my salvation will come, and my mercy be revealed,” to sōtērion mou paraginesthai kai to eleos mou apokalyphthēnai); this concept of the final revelation of God survives in Jewish traditions (cf. 3 Bar. 1–2; 4:13–14; 11:7; 17:4; see Bovon 2002: 103).
The texts behind the second part of the verse (“glory to your people Israel,” doxan laou sou Israēl) are more difficult to identify, although conceptual parallels can be found in texts such as Isa. 60:1–2: “Arise, shine; for your light [phōs] has come, and the glory [doxa] of the LORD has risen upon you. . . . the LORD will arise upon you, and his glory [doxa] will appear over you.” Drawing on Isaianic passages, Bar. 4:24 reflects a similar thought pattern in which the metaphor of vision appears together with the bestowal of glory upon God’s people: “For as the neighbors of Zion have now seen your capture, so they soon will see your salvation by God, which will come to you with great glory and with the splendor of the Everlasting.”
These OT and Jewish texts provide a way to understand the two parts of the verse. Some commentators see “revelation” and “glory” as in apposition to “light” (see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 428; Tiede 1988a: 327–41; Bock 1994–1996: 244), while others see “light” and “glory” as parallel with both in apposition to “salvation” in 2:30 (D. R. Jones 1968: 42; Schürmann 1990–1994: 1:126; Bovon 2002: 103; Kilgallen 1994: 307). In light of Isa. 49:6, which is quoted in Acts 13:47, salvation does seem to be presented as a light to the Gentiles in particular. As in Bar. 4:24, the arrival of this age of salvation will also be for the glory of Israel. The parallelism between light and glory found in Isa. 60:1–2 is therefore likely to be reflected here. This parallelism makes a striking point anticipated by the previous reference to “all peoples” (2:31): with the arrival of Israel’s deliverer, Gentiles will be able to participate in the people of God. One has to wait for Luke’s second volume for the unpacking of this point.
2:34
The imagery used here draws on Isa. 8:14–15, where God is portrayed as setting up a stone that Israel will stumble over, while the act of “rising” points to Isa. 28:16 (“See, I am laying in Zion a foundation stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation”). The connection between these two Isaianic passages appears also in other early Christian texts (e.g., Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet. 2:7–8). Psalm 118:22 (117:22 LXX), “The stone that the builders rejected has become the capstone,” also would not be far from Luke’s mind, especially when the quotation of this verse in Luke 20:17 is also combined with the imagery of falling in 20:18 (see R. E. Brown 1993: 461). The use of this psalm elsewhere in Luke (cf. 13:35; 19:38; Acts 4:11) further supports this connection.
The identification of scriptural passages behind the “stone” imagery does not resolve the issue of the identity of the groups referred to in the metaphor of “falling” and “rising.” For some, this verse refers to the schism within Israel (as in Acts 28:24; see Nolland 1989–1993: 121; Bovon 2002: 104), while for others, it refers to the sequential falling and rising of God’s people as in Isa. 51:17–23 (see Caird 1963: 64; Koet 1992). The third possibility is to read this verse in light of the parable of the Wicked Tenants (Luke 20:9–19), where one finds the fall of God’s people and the rise of those who were excluded. This third option is unlikely in light of the phrase “in Israel” in 2:34, although the theme of Israel’s persistent rejection in this parable is relevant in this discussion. In view of the prominence of the theme of division (cf. Luke 12:53) within Israel and the reference to the sword in the verse that follows, the first option is to be preferred. Moreover, the way the “stone” imagery functions in Luke 20:17 also rules out the sequential view.
Finally, the “sign” (sēmeion) imagery also has OT parallels. As the “stone” imagery is drawn from Isa. 8, Isa. 8:18 may be relevant here because the prophets were considered to be “signs [sēmeia] and portents [terata] in the house of Israel from the LORD of hosts.” Jesus therefore becomes a prophetic sign through which the message of God is revealed (see Bovon 2002: 104). This prophetic sign is not unlike the sēmeion of Jonah in Luke 11:29–32, where prophetic judgment is pronounced. Ironically, the sign that is spoken against became the sign of judgment for those who spoke against it.
2:35
Numerous suggestions have been offered for this imagery of the sword (see surveys in Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 429–30; Bock 1994–1996: 248–49). The two most plausible readings see this as (1) a reference to the sorrow that Jesus would cause his mother; and (2) a sword that separates the people of God. The first option rightly takes note of the phrase “your own soul” (sou [de] autēs tēn psychēn), which points to the personal nature of this statement. The second fits well in its wider context, where the theme of judgment is clearly expressed. This view is also supported by the possible allusion to Ezek. 14:17, where the sword is the instrument of judgment and discrimination. As in the case of the prophetic sēmeion (“sign”) in 2:34, both views may be embedded in this symbol: the path to the cross creates intense personal pain for Jesus’ mother, and it is this journey that serves as an instrument through which God’s people are judged. The reading would fit well with the Lukan portrayal of Jesus’ prophetic journey to Jerusalem in particular (see comments on Luke 9:51–19:44 below).
2:36
Recent years have witnessed a renewed interest in the person of Anna and the rhetorical role that she has in the Lukan narrative (age, marital status, parallels with OT and postbiblical Jewish figures, prophetic role, practices of piety, etc.; see Elliott 1988; Wilcox 1992; Bauckham 1997; Thurston 2001). In this verse she is explicitly identified as one from the “tribe of Asher.” Asher, one of the northern tribes, was never considered a noteworthy tribe. In the book of Judges the Asherites were remembered as living “among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land; for they did not drive them out” (Judg. 1:32). Nevertheless, after the fall of Samaria, Asher was numbered among a few tribes that were willing to participate in the Passover feast in Jerusalem (2 Chron. 30:10–11). The name of Anna’s father, “Phanuel,” reflects his origin, pointing back to the city of Penuel, a city mentioned together with Shechem in 1 Kings 12:25. D. Ravens (1995: 47) suggests that this minor northern tribe serves as a symbol of the northern kingdom, and Anna’s worshiping in the Jerusalem temple is taken as an indication of the expectation of the entire people of God for the arrival of Israel’s deliverer. Her recognition of Jesus as the bearer of Israel’s redemption points forward to Luke’s second volume, where the Samaritans join the Judeans in acknowledging the mighty acts of God in Jesus the Messiah (Acts 8:1–25). Rather than “add[ing] little to the story” (Bock 1994–1996: 251), Anna’s ancestry and tribal affiliation may have been intended to pave the way for the development of Luke’s account of the unfolding of salvation history.
2:38
“Redemption of Jerusalem” (lytrōsin Ierousalēm) echoes Isa. 52:8–10 (cf. Ps. 130:5–8; see Green 1997: 152), although verbal parallels in the LXX are lacking. This focus on Jerusalem as the center of God’s eschatological salvation is also the emphasis of Isa. 40:1–11, a passage evoked repeatedly in the early chapters of Luke (cf. 1:17, 19, 76; 2:25, 30–31; 3:4–6).
2:40
Besides the parallels identified in our earlier discussion of the growth statement of John the Baptist in 1:80, this verse draws attention to the “wisdom” of Jesus. Moving beyond the study by H. J. de Jonge (1978: 348–49) that identifies the presence of wisdom motifs in texts that portray the eschatological deliverers (e.g., Pss. Sol. 17:37; 1 En. 49:3; T. Levi 18:7), Strauss (1995: 122–23) draws attention to Isa. 11:1–3 as a source for many of these later texts. He also argues that Isa. 11:1–3 provides the conceptual context for the second half of this summary statement: plēroumenon sophia, kai charis theou ēn ep’ auto (“filled with wisdom, and the favor of God was upon him”). In both, one finds the wisdom motif (sophia), the reference to God’s bestowing of favor/the Spirit “on him” (ep’ auto/n), and a verb of “filling” (emplēsei [Isa. 11:3]; plēroumenon [Luke 2:40]). If so, this summary moves beyond that of John the Baptist (1:80) in identifying Jesus as the Davidic figure of Isa. 11. This is not inconsistent with the christological presentation of Luke 1–2, where Jesus is portrayed as the Davidic messiah, who is filled with the wisdom of the Spirit (2:41–52).
Luke 2:41–52
Rather than being a secondary insertion to the Lukan birth narrative (see R. E. Brown 1993: 480, 489), this story illustrates the wisdom of Jesus, as is noted in the summary statement of 2:40 (see H. J. de Jonge 1978: 322; M. Turner 1996: 161). In the LXX and in Jewish traditions several heroes were remembered as possessors of extraordinary wisdom: Solomon (1 Kings 3:5–14; 4:29), Samuel (Josephus, Ant. 5.348), and Daniel (Dan. 2:13, 48). In Jewish traditions the Messiah is also portrayed as one endowed with divine wisdom (see comments on 2:40). This manifestation of wisdom in Jesus’ knowledge of the law (2:46–47) may also reflect Jewish wisdom traditions that see a connection between wisdom and Torah (cf. Sir. 1:25–27; 6:37; 15:1; 19:20; 24:23; 33:2–3; Bar. 4:1; see Witherington 1994: 115). In the narrative development of Luke’s story this account points forward to Jesus’ (polemical) interaction with Jewish leadership in the second half of Luke’s Gospel (see Doble 2000: 187–88).
2:41
For the Feast of Passover, see comments on 22:1.
2:49
The elliptical expression tois tou patros mou has been understood as referring to either “my Father’s business” (NKJV) or “my Father’s house” (NIV, NRSV, et al.). It is possible that the ambiguity is intentional, since Jesus points both to his Father’s “matters” and more specifically to his Father’s “house” (Weinert 1983). In any case, the focus is on God as Jesus’ Father. “Father/son” language appears in the OT (Exod. 4:22; Isa. 63:16; Jer. 3:4) and Jewish traditions (Wis. 2:16, 18; Sir. 4:10; 23:1; 51:10) (see Schürmann 1990–1994: 1:137) to express the covenantal relationship between God and his people. In this verse the special relationship between Jesus and his “Father” is introduced as the Jesus-God relationship symbolizes the perfection of the covenantal relationship between God and his people. With the juxtaposition of the earthly “father” (2:48) and the heavenly one (2:49), Luke points to the primary frame of reference in which the ministry of Jesus is to be understood. Throughout Luke’s writings God continues to be portrayed as the Father of Jesus (Luke 9:26; 10:21–22; 22:29, 42; 23:34, 46; 24:49; Acts 1:4, 7), and Jesus is expected to do the will of this Father (Luke 22:42).
2:51
See comments on 2:19 above.
2:52
In addition to Jesus receiving divine favor as in 2:40 (see comments above), this verse also makes note of “human” (para . . . anthrōpois) favor. This additional element may point to Jesus’ obedience to his parents in 2:51 (cf. Prov. 3:1–14; see R. E. Brown 1993: 495). It is more likely, however, that this verse has a wider reference, as it points to the impression that Jesus left on the Jewish teachers in the temple (2:47). The early chapters of 1 Samuel, evoked numerous times in Luke 1–2, provide yet another parallel to this verse, as the focus on both divine and human favor finds its precedence in 1 Sam. 3:19–20: “As Samuel grew up, the LORD was with him and let none of his words fall to the ground. And all Israel from Dan to Beer-sheba knew that Samuel was a trustworthy prophet of the LORD.”
The appearance of “the word of God” (rhema theou) with a complete synchronism noting the political and religious contexts of the time echoes language of Israel’s prophets (cf. Jer. 1:1–3). This explicit appearance of the prophetic word is noteworthy. Some commentators have pointed to prophetic activities in the Second Temple period (see Aune 1983: 103–6; Webb 1991: 317–42), but the intensity of prophetic activities in Luke 1–2 points to the realization that God is acting in history in a new way (cf. Luke 1:42–45, 46–55, 68–79; 2:29–32, 36–38). These voices materialize with the explicit portrayal of the arrival of the word of God in the ministries of John the Baptist in this new era.
3:3
Various attempts have been made to identify the background of the baptism of John. The OT ritual of cleansing provides an obvious candidate, but it is neither related to acts of repentance nor a onetime act. In the early Christian centuries proselyte baptism was practiced, but evidence for this is too late for John’s practice, and conversion accounts of early postbiblical Jewish literature fail to mention such baptism (cf. Josephus, Ant. 20.38–48, 137–140; Jos. Asen. 10–18; see D. C. Smith 1982). The parallels between John’s ministry and the Qumran community provide an alternative: use of Isa. 40:3, similar ascetic practices, attitudes toward the temple and “mainstream” Jewish groups, eschatological emphasis, and geographical locations. The ritual washing that might have been practiced at Qumran (see 1QS V, 13) is similar to that of John’s, as both carry a moral message and eschatological urgency (cf. 1QS I, 24–II, 1; IX, 9–11; CD-A XV, 4; see Robinson 1957). Although Qumran ritual washing does provide a helpful parallel, unlike John’s baptism, it too is an act that needs to be repeated. Moreover, a closer examination of the evidence casts doubt on the significance of the apparent parallels between the two groups (see Taylor 1997: 15–48). Without arguing that John’s baptism is entirely “unique and new” (see Schürmann 1990–1994: 1:156–57), we do best to see the various “baptisms” as drawing from the symbolism embedded in OT ritual cleansing (cf. the eschatological interpretation in Sib. Or. 4:165) while developing separately within their own contexts and communities. John’s baptism falls within the prophetic traditions where external acts actualize mental decisions. In the context of John’s preaching this baptism is also a preparatory act for the arrival of God’s salvation.
Luke 3:4–6
A. NT Context: New Act of God. With this passage one finds the appearance of the first lengthy OT quotation in Luke’s writings. The quotation of Isa. 40:3–5 should not be considered as an isolated quotation from Isaiah introducing the ministry of John the Baptist; rather, it is one that is significant for establishing the foundation for the rest of Luke’s narrative (see Pao 2000: 37–69). This point is well established by the fact that Luke’s quotation extends beyond Mark’s use of Isa. 40:3, which can possibly be interpreted primarily in terms of John’s own preparatory ministry (see Stendahl 1968: 48; but cf. R. E. Watts 1997: 86–88). In Luke 3 the quotation climaxes in a note that emphasizes the universal significance of this dawn of salvation: “and all flesh shall see the salvation of God” (kai opsetai pasa sarx to sōtērion tou theou [3:6]). On the assumption that Luke is using Mark here (see Dunn 1994; although other traditions may be available to him [Bovon 2002: 117–19]), Luke’s inclusion of this longer quotation shifts the focus from John the Baptist to the entire early Christian movement. This insertion not only highlights the importance of the mission to the Gentiles but also points to the unity of Luke’s two volumes through this scriptural citation. The history of the early church therefore becomes an extension of the ministry of Jesus himself.
B. Isa. 40:3–5 in Context. The length of this Isaianic quotation points to the significance of its wider context for the narrative of Luke. Isaiah 40:1–11 serves as the prologue to Isa. 40–55, and together with 55:1–13 it provides unity to the diverse themes developed in the intervening chapters. Although Isa. 40–55 has often been understood as quite distinct from the pessimistic tone of Isa. 1–39, Isa. 40–55 should be seen as the announcement of the ultimate fulfillment of the salvific message that has already been hinted at earlier (e.g., Isa. 2:1–4; 4:2–6; 32:15–20). Isaiah 40:1–11 consists of four subsections (vv. 1–2, 3–5, 6–8, 9–11) that provide an introduction to the themes of Isa. 40–55 (see Westermann 1969: 32–46; Kratz 1993). Isaiah 40:1–2 begins with the language of consolation in portraying the arrival of God’s deliverance. This note of consolation embodies the promise to restore God’s people (cf. 51:3; 52:9). Isaiah 40:3–5 functions as a response to 40:1–2 in its calls for the transformation of the wilderness in the preparation for the Lord’s return. The speaker seems to be the prophet himself, although direct discourse from his mouth is unusual in Isaiah. The universalistic note in 40:5 forms the “centerpiece” of this prologue (see Freedman 1987: 160), as it paves the way for the distinct Isaianic universal vision (cf. 42:4, 10–13; 49:6; 51:4–6; 52:10). Isaiah 40:6–8 focuses on the power of the word of God (cf. 45:23; 55:10–11) in contrast with the frailty of the nations and their “idols” (40:18–20; 41:5–7; 44:9–20; 46:5–7). The conclusion of this prologue (40:9–11) again focuses on the restoration of God’s people while highlighting the place of Jerusalem/Zion in the fulfillment of the eschatological program.
As a prologue to Isa. 40–55, this passage also introduces the second-exodus program. The “way” (derek) motif (40:3) in particular evokes the “way” through which God delivers his people from Egypt (cf. Exod. 13:21–22; 23:20; Isa. 43:16–19; 44:26–27; 52:10). The fact that this “way” signifies the salvific act of God on behalf of his people is further explicated by the fact that this “way” is prepared for both God (40:3) and his people (42:16; 43:16–19; 49:11–12). As in the first exodus, this new exodus will reveal the glory of God (40:5; cf. 52:7–12). As an eschatological event, this new exodus also symbolizes a new creative act of God (40:12–31; 42:5; 44:24; 45:9–18; 48:12–13; 51:12–16) whereby the national story is transformed into a cosmological one. It is precisely within this cosmological vision that “all people” will be able to witness God’s mighty acts in history (40:5; cf. 49:6).
C. Isa. 40:3–5 in Judaism. This section within the prologue has a long history in Jewish exegetical traditions (see Snodgrass 1980; Bascom 1988: 221–46; Davis 1996: 61–102). Already in the LXX the phrase to sōtērion tou theou (“the salvation of God”) had been inserted in 40:5 to define further the object of the sight of all people. This might have served to establish this text as an icon signifying the coming salvation of God. Within the OT, Mal. 3:1 provides an interpretation of Isa. 40:3 in an explicit eschatological context (cf. Mal. 3:2). Instead of the joyous tone of Isa. 40:3, the element of judgment is present in this Malachi passage, which moves away from a reference to the physical return of the exiles from Babylon.
The expectation of the literal return of the exiles survives in references to Isa. 40:3 in postbiblical material (e.g., Bar. 5:6–9; Pss. Sol. 11:4, 6). With such uses, one also finds the ironic use of Isa. 40:3 where Pompey becomes the one whose arrival the people are anticipating (Pss. Sol. 8:17). The eschatological reading of Isa. 40:3–5 dominates in apocalyptic literature (T. Mos. 10:1; 1 En. 1:6–7), but it is found also in rabbinic literature (e.g., Pesiq. Rab. 20.30A). This eschatological interpretation finds its concrete manifestation in the Qumran documents where a separate eschatological community is envisioned. Isaiah 40:3 is explicitly noted in 1QS VIII, 13–16; IX, 16–21; 4Q176. More importantly, the self-designation derek (“Way”) appears in various contexts (1QS IX, 9, 16–21; X, 21; 1QHa IX, 36) and apparently is derived from an eschatological reading of Isa. 40:3. The wilderness locality further reflects this connection with the Isaianic passage (see Charlesworth 1997). Finally, the composite quotation of Isa. 40:3 together with Exod. 23:20 and Mal. 3:1 in Mark 1:2–3 provides the programmatic statement for the eschatological new-exodus program for the entire Gospel (see R. E. Watts 1997: 96–121). The mediation of Mark in Luke’s use of this Isaianic quotation cannot be doubted, although the striking extension of this quotation highlights the unique role that it plays in Luke’s two-volume work.
D. Textual Matters. Luke follows the LXX over against the MT, and this is reflected in his preference for the reading phōnē boōntos en tē erēmō (“a voice crying in the wilderness”) rather than having “in the desert” modifying “prepare,” although the LXX reading may reflect an earlier Hebrew tradition, especially in light of significant agreements between the LXX and 1QIsaa against the MT’s text of Isaiah (see Gundry 1967: 10). Luke’s dependence on the LXX is also reflected in the omission of the MT’s bāʿărābâ (“in the desert”) in 40:3b and in the insertion of the phrase to sōtērion tou theou (“the salvation of God”) in 40:5. Four changes from the LXX, however, can be identified. First, as in Mark and Matthew’s citation, Luke has autou (“his”) instead of tou theou hēmōn (“our God”). This change probably is an attempt to apply the passage to Jesus himself. Second, Luke omits panta (“all”) before ta skolia (“the crooked”), but the omission is found also in certain LXX traditions (A, V). Since the MT does not contain the equivalent of panta, these LXX traditions (perhaps even Luke himself) may have attempted to conform to the Hebrew reading. The third change is similar in this respect, as Luke uses the plural hai tracheiai (“the rough ways”) instead of the LXX’s singular hē tracheia (“the rough way”). The plural is also attested in some LXX traditions that attempt to conform to the Hebrew text (see Ziegler 1983: 267). Finally, Luke omits kai ophthēsetai hē doxa kyriou (“and the glory of the LORD shall appear”) of Isa. 40:5. The omission may be due to the presence of a similar phrase that contains a central idea in Luke’s writings: kai opsetai pasa sarx to sōtērion tou theou (“and all flesh shall see the salvation of God”). In any case, the omission is not theologically significant.
E. The Use of Isa. 40:3–5 in Luke 3:4–6. The appearance of this quotation is anticipated by Luke 2:30, where one finds the neuter sōtērion (“salvation”) in Simeon’s statement: eidon hoi ophthalmoi mou to sōtērion sou (“my eyes have seen your salvation”). The appearance of paraklēsis in 2:25 and the concept of “preparation” found in 1:17, 76 also pave the way for this block quotation. These earlier references to the prologue of Isa. 40:1–11 challenge the reading of this Isaianic quotation simply as a “prooftext” that is tied solely to the ministry of John the Baptist. The importance of this citation beyond its immediate context is also reflected in its deviation from the Markan usage. In Mark 1:2 the Isaianic quotation is preceded by a quotation of Mal. 3:1. Luke’s (and probably Q’s) separation of the two, by moving this quotation to Luke 7:27, encourages one to look beyond John the Baptist for the significance of this Isaianic text.
As noted above, this quotation serves to connect the ministry of the apostles with that of Jesus. The themes introduced in the prologue of Isa. 40:1–11 contribute to the structure of Luke’s theology: restoration of Israel, mission to the Gentiles, power of the word of God, and the frailty of the enemies of God’s people (see Pao 2000: 111–249). This quotation, appearing at the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry, therefore serves as the hermeneutical framework within which the ministry and significance of Jesus’ ministry can be understood. The connection between this quotation and Luke’s second volume is further established by the verbal link between the hodos (“way”) terminology in Isa. 40:3 and the designation of the early Christian movement as hē hodos (“the Way”) in Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22. This use of the “way” terminology as self-designation is found also in the Qumran literature, where the word derek, used as an identity marker (see discussion above), is also derived from Isa. 40:3.
Finally, the connection between this quotation and the one quoted at the end of the Lukan narrative (Isa. 6:9–10 in Acts 28:26–27) further sheds light on the significance of Luke’s use of Isa. 40:3–5. In its wider context Isa. 40:1–11 is considered a “remarkable parallel to Isaiah 6:1–12” (Cross 1973: 188; cf. Fisher 1974). In both, one finds the cries of heavenly beings, the protest of weakness and unworthiness, a commissioning account, and the use of a vision metaphor. Moreover, both are pivotal for their respective sections of the book (Isa.1–39; 40–55). The striking difference between the two is that whereas Isa. 6 announces the message of doom, Isa. 40 proclaims the arrival of God’s salvation. In the Lukan writings, however, this judgment-salvation reversal has again been turned around. Whereas Luke 3 uses Isa. 40 to announce the arrival of God’s salvation, Acts 28 ends the narrative on a pessimistic note with the citation of Isa. 6:9–10. The joyous note that all will “see” the salvation of God (Luke 3:6; Isa. 40:5) turns out to be a note of judgment for God’s people, as “they have shut their eyes” (Acts 28:27; Isa. 6:10). The fact that the next occurrence of the neuter sōtērion (“salvation”) after Luke 3:6 (Isa. 40:5) appears in Acts 28:28 further confirms that Isa. 40:3–5 is in Luke’s mind as he concludes his work with yet another quotation from Isaiah. Accordingly, the intervening material in Luke-Acts has to be read in light of the dramatic tension created by the placement of these two Isaianic quotations.
F. Theological Use. In salvation-historical terms, this quotation links Jesus’ ministry with the prophetic promises of Israel of the past and the apostolic ministry of the future. In its immediate context this quotation situates the ministry of John the Baptist within the unfolding plan of God. In the emphasis on the continuity with the past, the evocation of this Isaianic text also points to the realization of God’s promise to accomplish a “new thing” in history (Isa. 43:19) as John prepares the people for the salvation that is brought about by the life and ministry of Jesus. In ecclesiological terms, this lengthy quotation ends with a note that “all flesh shall see the salvation of God” (Luke 3:6; cf. Isa. 40:5). With the arrival of the climax of God’s covenantal relationship with his people, Gentiles will be able to witness the salvation of God. Luke’s second volume will make it clear that the Gentiles are not simply observers from a distance; rather, together with Israel they will become part of God’s people. The theme of Gentile inclusion is accompanied by the portrayal of Israel’s obduracy. As in the prophetic traditions of Israel, the note of judgment does not shut the door on Israel but serves as a call for Israel to repent.
3:7
The word echidna (“viper”) does not appear in the LXX, but it does appear as a variant reading to aspis (“viper”) in Isa. 59:5 (Aquila), a verse whose context is particularly important for this passage. While Isa. 59:5 mentions the evildoers hatching out “vipers,” 3:7–8 describe their evil deeds with language reminiscent of Isa. 40:3: “The way [hodon] of peace they do not know, and there is no justice in their paths [hodois]. Their roads [triboi] they have made crooked; no one who walks in them knows peace” (59:8). The call to “prepare the way [hodon] of the LORD, make his paths [tribous] straight” (Luke 3:4; Isa. 40:3) is answered by the vipers who aim at destroying the work of God. The connection may have already appeared in Q (cf. Matt. 3:7), and the author of this source may be aware of this variant tradition.
Hē mellousē orgē (“the wrath to come”) finds its roots in prophetic traditions (cf. Isa. 13:9; 30:27; Zeph. 2:2; see Creed 1930: 51). The manifestation of the wrath of God on those who oppose him is well illustrated in Mal. 3:2; 4:1, where one finds imagery of destructive fire. The relevance of these passages is affirmed in light of the significance of Mal. 3–4 for the portrayal of John the Baptist.
3:8
Abrahamic ancestry was frequently evoked in Judaism (cf. 2 Esd. 6:56–58; Josephus, Ant. 3.87–88; Pss. Sol. 9:9; Jub. 22:10–24; see Bock 1994–1996: 305). The mention of the “stones” (lithōn) may reflect pagan worship (cf. Acts 17:29; see Bovon 2002: 123), or it could be an Aramaic wordplay on bĕnayyāʾ (“children”) and ʾabnayyāʾ (“stones”) (see Creed 1930: 51). A clear OT parallel can be identified in Isa. 51, where Abraham is compared to the rock from which God’s people are hewn (Lampe 1993: 130):
Look to the rock from which you were hewn,
and to the quarry from which you were dug.
Look to Abraham your father
and to Sarah who bore you;
for he was but one when I called him,
but I blessed him and made him many. (51:1b–2)
This use of the “rock/stone” imagery with the figure of Abraham is unique in the OT. This Isaianic promise focuses on God’s blessings on the descendants of Abraham, and the link between Abraham and the concept of “fruitfulness” is made explicit in the 1QIsaa text of Isa. 51:2. A similar point is made with the use of the “rock/stone” imagery in Tg. Neof. Deut. 33:15, which speaks of the production of “good fruits by the merits of our fathers—who are like the rocks, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Allison 2000a: 104). In Luke (and Q) this imagery is strikingly used in a way to suggest that Abrahamic ancestry alone will not secure one’s position among God’s people.
3:9
In the OT Israel is frequently compared to a fruitless vine (Ps. 80:8; Isa. 5:2; Jer. 2:21; Ezek. 15:6; 17:6; 19:10; Hos. 10:1). Images of fire and judgment may again evoke Mal. 3–4, but the use of an ax in the act of destruction points specifically to Isa. 10:33–34, where the judgment of the Assyrians is announced. The judgment on Israel’s enemies will fall upon those within God’s people who refuse to repent. In Jewish traditions (2 Bar. 36–40; 4Q161 8–10; 4Q285 5) Isa. 10:33–34 receives a messianic interpretation and is connected with Isa. 11:1–5 (Bauckham 1995). The preaching of John may reflect an awareness of these traditions.
3:16
The description of the Messiah as the one who “comes” (erchetai) alludes to the eschatological figure of Mal. 3:1 (“he is coming,” erchetai) and the royal messianic figure of Ps. 118:26 [117:26 LXX] (“Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the LORD,” eulogēmenos ho erchomenos en onomati kyriou) (see Dunn 1994: 51). The adjective ischyros (“strong”) has been applied to God (Deut. 10:17; Isa. 28:2), but the nominal ischys (“strength”) also appears in Isa. 11:2, where “the spirit of counsel and strength” (pneuma boulēs kai ischyos) is promised to the coming royal figure.
The baptism “with the Holy Spirit and fire” (en pneumati hagiō kai pyri) should be regarded as referring to one baptism, as both terms are governed by one preposition (en, “with”), and the address is directed to one group (hymas, “you”). In the OT the Spirit (rûaḥ/pneuma) is associated with judgment (Isa. 4:4; 40:24; 41:16; Jer. 4:11–16; 23:19; 30:23; Ezek. 13:11–13), as is fire (Isa. 66:24; Joel 2:30; Mal. 4:1) (see Davies and Allison 1988–1997: 1:310–17). The combination of the symbols of spirit and fire with the imagery of water is found in Isa. 30:27–28, where one also finds the expectation of the discriminating judgment of God (Dunn 1994: 51). Together with Isa. 32:15, which informs other Lukan passages such as Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8; 3:19–20, these Isaianic oracles provide the language for John’s message.
3:17
The presence of eschatological fire that will burn up the chaff in the context of the judgment of Israel brings to mind Mal. 4:1a: “See, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble.” The presence of this echo behind 3:17 is plausible in light of the portrayal of John the Baptist, which is couched in language reminiscent of the Elijah figure of Mal. 3–4 in 3:7–17 and elsewhere in Luke (1:17, 76; 7:27) (see Trumbower 1994). Nevertheless, the comparison of the judgment of the wicked to chaff burning in fire is not unique to Malachi (cf. Ps. 83:13–14; Isa. 29:5–6; Obad. 18; see Allison 2000a: 123), and our discussion above, especially on 3:16, has shown how various OT passages have also contributed to John’s message. The reference to pyri asbestō (“unquenchable fire”), for example, finds its parallels in other passages where the punishment of the wicked is described: “for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched [kai to pyr autōn ou sbesthēsetai], and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh” (Isa. 66:24b; cf. 34:8–10; Jer. 17:27).
3:21–22
On the assumption that Luke is using Mark in his account of Jesus’ baptism (Nolland 1989–1993: 159–60; Lambrecht 1992), his departure from Mark here is striking. Instead of Mark’s focus on Jesus’ water baptism (Mark 1:9–11), Luke focuses on the opening of the heaven that leads to the descent of the Spirit and the deliverance of the heavenly voice. The actual water baptism of Jesus is relegated to the background by the adverbial participle baptisthentos (“when [Jesus] was baptized”). Unlike Mark’s eis auton (“on him” [1:10]), in Luke the descent of the Spirit upon (epi) Jesus anticipates the citation of Isa. 61:1–2 (“the Spirit of the LORD is upon [ep’] me. . . .”) in 4:18. This focus on the descent of the Spirit points to the arrival of the eschatological era, when the Spirit is with God’s people (cf. Acts 2:17–21; Joel 2:28–32). Jesus’ anointment by the Spirit provides further definition to the title “messiah” as it appeared in 2:11. Although anointment can be applied to prophetic and priest figures (see comments on 2:11), the portrayal of the future Davidic figure as one anointed by the Spirit should not be ignored: “A shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. The spirit of the LORD shall rest on [ep’] him” (Isa. 11:1–2a) (see Strauss 1995: 203). The repeated echoes of Isa. 11 (Luke 1:78; 2:40; 3:9, 16) encourage one to see a reference to Davidic messiahship behind Jesus’ anointment by the Spirit.
The opening of heaven belongs to apocalyptic traditions with the focus being placed on the revelatory motif (cf. Ezek. 1:1; 2 Bar. 22:2; T. Levi 2:6; John 1:51; Acts 7:56; 10:11; see Nolland 1989–1993: 160). Many scholars readily admit that the meaning behind the symbolism of the dove cannot be determined with any degree of certainty (see survey in Davies and Allison 1988–1997: 1:331–34). Noting the comparison between the deliverance of Noah and baptism in 1 Pet. 3:20–21, some have maintained that the dove sent out by Noah (Gen. 8:8–12) is behind this symbolism (see Dunn 1970: 27). More probable is the allusion to Gen. 1, where one finds the appearance of the Spirit as signaling the beginning of a new creative act of God. Allison (1992) has pointed to a possible parallel in the recently published Messianic Vision Fragment (I 6), where one finds a similar use of Gen. 1:2 in describing the eschatological future where the Spirit will hover over the saints.
Concerning the voice from heaven, a major textual variant needs to be noted. Instead of sy ei ho huios mou ho agapētos, en soi eudokēsa (“You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased”), some Western manuscripts and patristic witnesses (D it Ju [Cl] Meth Hil Aug) have the LXX text of Ps. 2:7: huios mou eisy, egō sēmeron gegennēka se (“You are my son, today I have begotten you”). This Western reading has been adopted by some (e.g., Rese 1969: 193–96; Vigne 1992: 20–21) because the non-Western reading could be explained by its assimilation to the Markan source. A number of factors argue against this conclusion, however. First, this reading is supported by only one major Greek manuscript. Second, other similar examples of assimilation to the LXX can be identified in the Western text (e.g., Acts 7:37; 13:33). Third, composite citations are known to have been reduced to one OT text (see Bovon 2002: 129). Fourth, a harmonization with Matthew would be more likely than with Mark. Fifth, a later scribe might have harmonized this citation with the one in Acts 13:33.
Psalm 2:7 is likely to have contributed to the direct address and the words sy ei huios mou (“you are my Son”). Luke’s awareness of this psalm is illustrated by the explicit quotation of its first two verses in the believers’ prayer in Acts 4:25–26. In Paul’s speech in Pisidian Antioch this verse of the psalm is also quoted together with several other texts of the Davidic traditions (Acts 13:32–37; cf. Ps. 2:7; Isa. 55:3; Ps. 16:10). This royal messianic text is also prepared for by passages in Luke 1–2, where one finds the anticipation of the promised Davidic figure (1:32–33, 68–79; 2:11). Moreover, the use of the term huios (“son”) in a royal messianic sense can be detected also in 4:41; 9:35; 18:38–39; 20:41, 44 (cf. 8:28; 10:22; 22:70; Acts 9:20). Thus the “foundational” nature of Ps. 2:7 should be recognized (Rusam 2003: 168). This Lukan usage is fully established even when the messianic use of the title “Son of God” cannot be securely grounded in Second Temple Jewish traditions (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 485; but cf. 4QFlor 1 I, 21, 2.10–14; 1Q28a II, 11–12; 4Q246; see Green 1997: 186).
The final clause of the quotation, en soi eudokēsa (“with you I am well pleased”), may allude to Isa. 42:1, although verbal parallels are not obvious: prosedexato auton hē psychē mou (“my soul has accepted him”). A number of Greek versions (Theodotion) resemble the MT in having eudokēsa (“pleased”), and the existence of different versions of this text is also evident in Matthew’s quotation of Isa. 42:1–4 in 12:18–21 (see Gundry 1967: 110, 112–13). Nevertheless, one cannot rule out that Luke himself is aware of the Hebrew text: rāṣĕtâ napĕšî (“in whom my soul delights”). In any case, Luke’s awareness of Isa. 42:1 is indicated by his redaction of Mark’s agapētos (“beloved”) into eklelegmenos (“chosen”) in 9:35. The allusion to Isa. 42:1 fits well within the Lukan context here, which mentions the bestowal of the Spirit (3:22; cf. “I will put my Spirit upon him”) with a view to the Gentiles (3:4–6, 8–9; cf. “he will bring forth justice to the nations”). Christologically, this allusion links the royal messianic status of Jesus with that of the Isaianic Servant of Yahweh as he participates in the unfolding of the eschatological program as indicated in 3:4–6. Moreover, this points forward to Jesus’ Nazareth sermon (4:18–19), where the anointment of the Spirit is again explicated by two Isaianic passages (Isa. 58:6; 61:1–2).
What is unclear in this verse is the OT context behind the expression ho agapētos (“the Beloved”). In light of the fact that in 9:35 Luke changes Mark’s agapētos to align with Isa. 42:1, the expression ho agapētos could be taken together with en soi eudokēsa as “a relatively free rendering of Isa. 42:1b altered to a second-person address” (M. Turner 1996: 198). This phrase could also be related to Ps. 2:7, in which case it is meant to modify huios (“son”) and not be taken as a separate title (cf. Tg. to Ps. 2:7; see Marshall 1978: 146). For those who would look elsewhere for its OT context, Gen. 22:2, 12, 16, where the word agapētos is used, offer a possible parallel. More importantly, in Jub. 17:16, where one finds the use of the Isaac tradition, the formulation provides a close parallel for the entire verse: “Behold, Abraham loves Isaac, his son. And he is more pleased with him than everything” (see Stegner 1989: 19–20). Isaac typology may be working here, but the parallel is limited to the unique relationship between the father and his son. Moreover, this parallel is to be qualified by clear allusions to the expected Davidic and servant figure (contra Daly 1977; Stegner 1989: 28). Finally, some have pointed to Exod. 4:22–23 and thus the existence of Israel typology here (Bretscher 1968). Nevertheless, the use of prōtotokos instead of agapētos weakens the force of this parallel. Of the foregoing options, Gen. 22:2, 12, 16 provide clear verbal parallels, while Isa. 42:1 itself may also be sufficient to explain this additional expression, especially with reference to the idea of election. With both, one finds the emphasis on the special relationship between Jesus and his Father. For the exact models through which Jesus is presented in this heavenly utterance, one has to be content with the clear allusions to the Davidic messianic and servant paradigms.
Luke 3:23–38
Our discussion of the use of the OT in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus affects our understanding of this genealogy in various ways: its placement, form, source, and function within Luke’s narrative. Unlike Matthew, who places Jesus’ genealogy at the very beginning of his narrative (1:1–17), Luke places it between Jesus’ baptism and his temptation. Luke may have followed Moses’ genealogy in Exod. 6, where it appears after the account of his call in Exod. 3 (see Kurz 1993: 24). It is not necessary, however, to look beyond Luke to discern the reason for this specific placement of the genealogy. Since the genealogy immediately follows the heavenly voice that provides the identity of Jesus, the genealogy performs a similar function in pointing to Jesus’ messianic status.
Although no particular genealogy in the OT can be identified as the model for Luke’s genealogy, its length may point to its connection with its OT precedents (Aune 1987: 121). Comparable to Hellenistic genealogies, however, is its order, which starts with the main character, and its emphasis on divine ancestry (cf. Diogenes Laertius, Life of Plato 3.1–2; Plutarch, Alex. 2.1; see Johnson 1991: 72). This ordering is found also in biblical genealogies (cf. Ezra 7:1–5), and Jesus’ divine ancestry is likewise an emphasis already found in Luke 1–2. Thus the form of Luke’s style in this section can be attributed to “the function of the genealogy in this context, rather than an allegiance to the Hellenistic practice” (Lampe 1993: 138).
This genealogy may have drawn from the LXX rather than the MT because of the LXX form of many of the names and the lack of a Hebrew equivalent for the name Kainan (“Cainan”) in 3:36 (cf. in the LXX: Gen. 10:24; 11:12; 1 Chron. 1:18 [A]). Many of the names are absent from the OT, both LXX and MT (Jannai [3:24], Esli [3:25], Semein [3:26], Josech [3:26], Rhesa [3:27], Cosam [3:28], Melea [3:31], Menna [3:31]), however, and therefore Luke perhaps had other sources for this genealogy. Some would argue that an existing genealogy is available to Luke (see Schürmann 1990–1994: 203; Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 491; Strauss 1995: 210–12), which would explain its difference from Matthew’s genealogy (see the survey of solutions in Marshall 1978: 158–59). In this genealogy one can detect the presence of seventy-seven names grouped into groups of sevens, with notable figures such as Enoch, Abraham, David, and Joseph ending some of the groups. Luke’s apparent ignorance of (or lack of emphasis on) this numbering further reflects his use of an existing genealogy (Marshall 1978: 160–61). Finally, the presence of non-LXX forms of some of the names (e.g., Iōrim [3:29], Iōbēd [3:32], Kainam [3:36–37]) further confirms this conclusion (see Bauckham 1991).
Several proposals have been offered to identify the function of Luke’s genealogy. The reference all the way back to Adam may point to an Adam typology wherein Jesus is presented as the one who fulfills the intended destiny of the first Adam (Marshall 1978: 161), but an explicit Adam typology is not developed elsewhere in Luke. It could also point to the universal significance of Jesus’ life and ministry (Schürmann 1990–1994: 1:202; Nolland 1989–1993: 173; Bock 1994–1996: 360). References to Abraham and David may also be important in light of Luke’s narrative, but these names were not highlighted in the genealogy. Finally, the note on divine ancestry may be important (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 498, 501; Johnson 1991: 72), but it is difficult to imagine Luke emphasizing Jesus’ divinity through human mediation (see Marshall 1978: 161). In tracing the line from God through Adam all the way to Jesus, Luke may be indicating that Jesus’ humanity (and therefore his universal significance) is at issue.
In the following discussion only names that are identifiable in the OT will be briefly noted.
3:27
Zerubbabel is the first person in the genealogy who can be clearly identified in the OT. He often is identified as the son of Shealtiel (Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh. 12:1; Hag. 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 23; 1 Chron. 3:19 LXX) and therefore the grandson of King Jehoiachin. Zerubbabel served as the governor of Jerusalem when some of the Jews returned in 538 BC.
3:31
Instead of tracing the line through Solomon the son of David, Luke (probably following his source) traces the line through Nathan the third son of David (3:31; cf. 2 Sam. 5:14; 1 Chron. 3:5; 14:4). This may be due to his knowledge of Jeremiah’s prophecies against Jehoiakim (Jer. 36:30) and Jechoniah (Jer. 22:24–30) of the line of Solomon that their descendant will not inherit the throne of David (Strauss 1995: 215). Also plausible is the influence of a reading of Mic. 5:1–2 MT, where the promised ruler is to be derived from the line of David but not necessarily through the Davidic dynasty that follows (Böhler 1998). The exact rationale behind this shift remains unclear.
The mentioning of the name of David is significant, and its appearance immediately links this genealogy with the allusion to Ps. 2:7 in 3:22. The Lukan birth narrative has already pointed to Jesus’ Davidic connection (1:32–33, 68–79; 2:11). Beginning with David, one finds OT parallels with the genealogy in 1 Chron. 1:34–2:15.
3:32
Jesse is the father of David, the Bethlehemite who belongs to the tribe of Judah (1 Sam. 16:1). Particularly important in this context is the Isaianic identification of the future messianic king as “from the stump of Jesse” (Isa. 11:1) and “the root of Jesse” (Isa. 11:10). Obed, Boaz, Sala (or Salmon), and Nahshon all appear in the genealogy in 1 Chron. 2:10–12.
3:33
Amminadab and Hezron appear in 1 Chron. 2:9–10, but the names that come between them in Luke 3:33 (“Admin” and “Arni”) do not appear in 1 Chron. 2, although the name “Aram” that appears in some manuscripts (A D 33 565 1079) possibly appears in 1 Chron. 2:10 in the form of the Hebrew name Ram. The existence of “a bewildering variety of readings” (Metzger 1994: 113) renders the search for the original text quite difficult. Perez and Judah appear in 1 Chron. 2:4, and Judah is the fourth son of Jacob, whose name represents one of the twelve tribes of Israel (Gen. 35:23). A hint of the promised messiah who is to come from this tribe can be found already in Gen. 49:8–12.
3:34
Isaac, Jacob, and Abraham receive brief mention, but together they point to the Abrahamic covenant and the continuation of the Abrahamic line (cf. Gen. 50:24; Exod. 2:24; 6:8; Num. 32:11; Deut. 6:10; Jer. 33:26). Moving beyond Abraham, this genealogy draws on Gen. 5:1–32; 11:10–26; 1 Chron. 1:24–27. Terah is the father of Abraham (Gen. 11:26; 1 Chron. 1:26), and Nahor, Abraham’s grandfather (Gen. 11:22–25; 1 Chron. 1:26).
3:35–38
The list from Serug to Arphaxad appears in the genealogies in Gen. 11 and 1 Chron. 1. Cainan (3:36) appears in the LXX of Gen. 11:12 and 1 Chron. 1:18 (A) without a Hebrew equivalent. The list from Shem (the eldest son of Noah) to Seth (the third son of Adam and Eve, but listed as the firstborn of Adam in Gen. 5:3–8; 1 Chron. 1:1) is found in the genealogies of Gen. 5 and 1 Chron. 1. The genealogy of Gen. 5 begins with this note in v. 1: “When God created man [ʾādām], he made him in the likeness of God” (NIV). This may have contributed to Luke’s description of Adam as tou theou (“the [son] of God”). An exact parallel to this description of Adam cannot be identified in Jewish traditions (cf. Philo, Virtues 37.204–205; see Bock 1994–1996: 360).
Three interweaving traditions can be identified in this account of Jesus’ temptation: Israel’s wilderness experience, Deut. 6–8, and Ps. 91:11–12 (90:11–12 LXX). Because of the interconnectedness of these elements, these citations will be considered together with the narrative framework in which they are placed.
A. NT Context: Jesus the Faithful Son. Luke’s account of Jesus’ temptation follows the baptismal narrative and the lengthy genealogy. Anointed with the Spirit (3:22), Jesus is now “full of the Holy Spirit” and “led by the Spirit in the wilderness” (4:1). After proving to be faithful to God, Jesus was again “filled with the power of the Spirit,” and this focus on the Spirit leads directly to the Isaianic quotation in 4:18–19 that explains the significance of Jesus’ anointment. The issue of Jesus’ status as the Son of God (3:22) resurfaces in this temptation account (4:3; cf. 3:38) when the content of this recognition is clarified through Jesus’ refusal to yield to the plan of Satan. Its connection with the genealogy is evident also through Jesus’ identification with Israel (and maybe even Adam) in his use of Scripture in this account. Situated in this context, this story is no longer one that is concerned with the private life of an individual.
The narrative introduction of this temptation account resembles Mark’s summary statement (Mark 1:12–13): the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness for forty days. The conversation between Jesus and Satan is found only in Matthew and Luke. Many would conclude that Luke is using Q as his source, without ruling out the accessibility of Mark (Schürmann 1990–1994: 1:218–20). The apparently minor and theologically insignificant differences between Matthew and Luke may also point to the use of different versions of Q (see Bock 1994–1996: 365). On the assumption that they share the same source, the different ordering of the temptation events is noteworthy. Most would affirm that Matthew’s order reflects the ordering in Q (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 507–8; Nolland 1989–1993: 177) and that the redactional change in Luke is intended to make the temple scene the climax of the temptations. Others see Luke’s redaction as highlighting Jesus’ final statement in 4:12, which could provide a fitting conclusion for the series of challenges: “Do not put the Lord your God to the test” (see Goulder 1989: 1:294).
B. Deut. 6:13, 16; 8:3; Ps. 91:11–12 in Context. The three responses of Jesus come from Deut. 6–8. These chapters belong to the wider section that starts in 4:44, where one finds the stipulations of the covenant made between God and Israel his covenant partner. The opening section of Deut. 6–8, which focuses on the call to Israel to be faithful and obedient, contains the Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might” (6:4–5). The remaining material in this chapter is framed by references to the exodus events, in which God delivered his people from slavery (6:10–12, 20–25). Significantly, this section contains a note that mentions Israel’s testing of God in the wilderness (6:16). Chapter 7 again focuses on God’s faithfulness in the past and the promise of his continued love and mercy to those who are faithful to him. Chapter 8 points again to God’s work among Israel and how God had disciplined his people as “a parent disciplines a child” (v. 5). This chapter continues the call to Israel to be faithful to their deliverer and concludes with a curse: “Like the nations that the LORD is destroying before you, so shall you perish, because you would not obey the voice of the LORD your God” (8:20). A cursory survey of this section shows that the call to be God’s faithful partner is grounded in their interaction during the exodus event: while the exodus experience reminds one of God’s faithfulness, it also points to Israel’s disobedience. Echoes of the book of Exodus in particular confirm this observation (13:9–16 [Deut. 6:6, 20–21]; 16:1–36 [Deut. 8:3]; 17:1–7 [Deut. 6:16; 8:15]; 23:20–33 [Deut. 7:12–26]).
The chapters that follow also highlight the theme of faithfulness (or the lack of it) within the context structured by the exodus events. Chapters 9–10, which echo the narrative about the golden calf in Exod. 32–34, provide the prime example of Israel’s disobedience. Themes of apostasy, self-sufficiency, and disobedience found in the preceding material (see McConville 2002: 173) crystallize in this narrative when forgetfulness expresses itself in acts of idolatry. Situated within this wider context, the individual verses that Jesus cites draw on the force of this entire section. Jesus’ response to Satan’s first temptation comes from Deut. 8:3 (Luke 4:4), a verse that points to complete reliance on God and his promises. The responses to the second and third temptations are drawn from the same section in Deut. 6 where the Shema is explicated. The call to worship and serve YHWH alone (6:13; Luke 4:8) becomes Jesus’ response to the temptation to receive “the kingdoms of the world” (Luke 4:5) from the hands of Satan, and Israel’s testing of God at Massah/Meribah (6:16; Luke 4:12) is evoked in Jesus’ rebuke of Satan for his testing of God. The account to which Deut. 6:16 is alluding ends with the question that the Israelites raised in their testing of God: “Is the LORD among us or not?” (Exod. 17:7). It is this questioning of the sovereignty of God and his Messiah that is at the heart of Satan’s three attempts to challenge Jesus.
Psalm 91 (90 LXX), the psalm that Satan uses in his third temptation in Luke, is called in the LXX “Praise, a Song of David” (ainos ōdēs tō Dauid), although its connection to David is not obvious. This psalm serves as a response to Ps. 90, which begins with the affirmation of God as “our dwelling place in all generations” (v. 1) and ends with a call for God’s protection and presence: “Let the favor of the LORD our God be upon us” (v. 17). Using traditional language, Ps. 91 affirms God’s protection by calling him “my refuge” (maḥĕsî [v. 2; cf. 14:6; 46:1; 62:7–8; 71:7; 142:5]) and stating that his people will be found under “his wings” (kĕnāpāyw [v. 4; cf. 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 61:4; 63:7]). The concluding divine oracle likewise focuses on the assurance of divine protection: “Those who love me I will deliver; I will protect those who know my name” (91:14). Many would see this as a liturgical psalm that anticipates God’s protection in the temple worship (Tate 1990: 450–51), and it is this theme of protection that emerges in Satan’s testing of Jesus (91:11–12; Luke 4:10–11).
As in Deut. 6–8, the exodus journey may have also provided the context for this psalm (Mitchell 1997: 277–78). The “thousand” who “fall at your side” (91:7) may be an allusion to the generation that died in the desert, and the promise of protection from the dashing of one’s foot “against a stone” (91:12) and from “the lion and the adder” (91:13) may likewise assume a wilderness environment. Parallels with Deut. 32, a passage that is closely tied with Deut. 8 in particular, further strengthen this connection. References to “pinions” (ʾebrâ) and “wings” (kĕnāpāyw) in the same context are found only in Ps. 91:4 and Deut. 32:11. Divine protection against “pestilence/destruction” (qeṭeb) in Ps. 91:6 also echoes the “pestilence/destruction” of Deut. 32:24. Finally, the “punishment/vengeance” (šillūmâ) that the wicked will go through in Ps. 91:8 is also the fate of those in Deut. 32:35, 41 (šillēm). If the wilderness setting of this psalm is established, then Satan’s use of Ps. 91 in the context of Jesus’ use of Deut. 6–8 in the wilderness setting becomes all the more significant.
C. Deut. 6:13, 16; 8:3; Ps. 91:11–12 in Judaism. The significance of Deut. 6:4–9, with its focus on the worship of one God, finds its echoes throughout the later writings (cf. Deut. 32:39; 2 Sam. 7:22; 1 Chron. 17:20; Ps. 86:10; Isa. 43:10; 44:6; 45:18), and this focus of the section dominates later Jewish traditions especially when the Shema is recited (cf. Josephus, Ant. 4.13; m. Ber. 2:2; m. Meg. 4:3; m. Tamid 5:1). Deuteronomy 6:13 continues with this theme and is evoked when the worship of the one God is noted (cf. Apoc. Adam 1:12; Philo, Alleg. Interp. 3.208). Deuteronomy 8:3 evokes another set of concerns, where the contrast between bread and the word of God can be found. Although the text in its context focuses on the contrast between self-reliance and total dependence on God, it often is evoked to highlight the contrast between material and spiritual nourishment. This is best illustrated in the writings of Philo where, on the basis of this verse, one is called to flee one’s passion (Alleg. Interp. 3.174) and to seek divine laws (Decalogue 13), wisdom (Prelim. Studies. 170–173), and spiritual nourishment (Alleg. Interp. 3.176).
Deuteronomy 6:16 deserves special treatment because it explicitly highlights the prohibition against testing God. This verse alludes to Exod. 17:1–7 (cf. Num. 20:1–13), where one finds the narrative that gave rise to the legend of the well that follows Israel in the wilderness (cf. L.A.B. 10:7; 11:15; Num. Rab. 19:26; Tg. Ps.-J. Num. 21; t. Sukkah 3.11–13; cf. 1 Cor. 10:4; see Ellis 1981: 67–68). It is the negative tradition of Israel’s distrusting their God, however, that contributes to the understanding of Luke 4. Israel’s testing of their deliverer at Massah/Meribah becomes one of the prime examples of disobedience in the wilderness in the later narrative in Deuteronomy (9:22; 32:51; 33:8) and beyond (Ps. 81:7; 95:8; 106:32; cf. Ps. 78:56). This narrative also contributes to the tradition of Israel’s murmuring, which extends beyond the canonical text (cf. CD-A III, 8; Philo, Moses 1.181; T. Mos. 7:7; 4 Ezra 1:15–16; see Bauckham 1983: 98). Thus the evocation of Deut. 6:16 in Luke 4 points beyond one historical event to Israel’s long history of being an unfaithful partner to their God.
Moving to Ps. 91, we see that the theme of divine protection in the wilderness context continues in the Jewish traditions where the foundation story of Israel is transformed into one in which the personal protection against demons becomes the focus of Jewish exegetical traditions (Hugger 1971: 331–33; van der Ploeg 1971: 128–39; Mitchell 1997: 279–81). Already in the LXX the protection from noonday (sunshine) is interpreted as protection from daimoniou mesēmbrinou (“noonday demon” [91:6]), and similar interpretive renderings of this verse can be found in the Peshitta and the Targum (Allison 2000a: 159). In 11Q11, with three other noncanonical psalms, Ps. 91 is understood as a text to be used in exorcistic liturgy. The allusion to this psalm later in Luke 10:19, where Jesus empowers his apostles to subdue the evil powers, fits well within this interpretive tradition. Thus the use of this psalm by Satan in the temptation narrative is striking because the divine power offered to Jesus is actually one to be used against the evil one.
D. Textual Matters. The first quotation of the temptation narrative, in Luke 4:4, is taken verbatim from Deut. 8:3 LXX, which faithfully renders the Hebrew text, and it is identical to Matthew’s quotation, which includes the clause all’ epi panti rhēmati ekporeuomenō dia stomatos theou (“but by every word that comes from the mouth of God” [Matt. 4:4]). This clause is included also in some manuscripts of Luke 4:4, but they are likely secondary, reflecting an attempt to assimilate to the Matthean or septuagintal reading (Holtz 1968: 61; Metzger 1994: 113). The second quotation, in Luke 4:8, is identical to Matthew’s reading (4:10), and they are identical to LXX A of Deut. 6:13, while LXX B (which reflects the Hebrew of the MT) has phobēthēsē (fear”) instead of proskynēseis (“worship”), and the word monō (“only”) is omitted. T. Holtz (1968: 62–63) argues for Q’s use of LXX A, but others (e.g., New 1993: 58; Kimball 1994b: 85–86) see the reading in LXX A as an assimilation to Q or the NT text. Either influenced by LXX A or as an intentional redactional move, the use of the verb proskyneō (“worship”) in 4:8 corresponds to Satan’s use of the same verb in 4:7. Jesus’ third quotation, in Luke 4:12, is identical to both Matt. 4:7 and Deut. 6:16 LXX, which has a singular ouk ekpeiraseis (“do not test”) rather than the plural lō tĕnassû (“do not test”) of the MT.
Satan’s quotation in Luke 4:10–11 is identical to Ps. 90:11–12 LXX (which accurately translates Ps. 91:11–12 MT) but omits the phrase en pasais tais hodois sou (“in all your ways”). Luke’s citation is identical to Matt. 4:6, although Matthew’s citation is further abbreviated by the omission of the words tou diaphylaxai se (“to protect you”). If these words were not in Q, their inclusion may reflect Luke’s attempt to include them to complete the verb enteleitai (“he will command”) (see New 1993: 56).
E. The Use of Deut. 6:13, 16; 8:3; Ps. 91:11–12 in Luke 3:4–6. Before examining the role of the citations in Luke 3, we should explore both the setting and the combination of the three “tests” in light of the exodus context as evoked by the explicit quotations themselves. It has been noted that the temptation narrative is framed by allusions to Israel’s wilderness experience (see Gerhardsson 1966: 42–44). The reference to “forty days” may evoke Israel’s forty-year journey (cf. Exod. 16:35; Num. 32:13; Deut. 2:7; Josh. 5:6; Neh. 9:21; Ps. 95:10; Amos 2:10), as “forty days” has already come to symbolize the forty-year journey in the OT, especially when the temporal reference applies to an individual rather than a nation (cf., e.g., Num. 14:34; Ezek. 4:5–6; see Gibson 1995: 83; Allison 2000a: 26). Luke’s interest in Israel’s forty-year wilderness wanderings is reflected in its reference in Acts 7:30, 36, 42; 13:18. Closer to Deut. 6–8, one also finds reference to Moses’ forty-day fast on Mount Horeb: “I remained on the mountain forty days and forty nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water” (Deut. 9:9 [see also Exod. 34:28]; cf. Matt. 4:2: “forty days and forty nights”). These references make it unlikely that “forty” is simply used as “a round figure” (cf. Gen. 7:4, 12; 1 Kings 19:8; see Creed 1930: 62).
Equally important is the “wilderness” (erēmos) setting of Jesus’ temptation. In the OT the wilderness journey brings to mind divine revelation as well as Israel’s disobedience, but S. Talmon (1993: 236) has shown that the motif of disobedience and punishment dominates the later references to the wilderness period (with the clear exception of Isa. 40–55). It is this aspect of the wilderness motif that is critical to this temptation narrative, as the disobedience of Israel is evoked to highlight the perfect obedience of Jesus as God’s faithful Son. The numerous details that reflect the wilderness context therefore acquire added significance (Dupont 1957). The “wilderness” is closely tied with the symbol “forty” in the memory of Israel (cf. Num. 32:13; Deut. 2:7; 29:5; Neh. 9:21; Amos 5:25), and the phrase “forty years in the wilderness” appears in a context resembling that in which the quotation of Luke 4:4 appears: “Remember the long way that the LORD your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, in order to humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commandments” (Deut. 8:2). These textual indicators lead the reader to see the testing of Jesus in light of the testing of Israel in the wilderness journey.
Not only does the setting evoke memories of the history of Israel, but also the three “temptations” may reflect Jewish interpretive traditions. In the psalms one already finds a listing of Israel’s disobedient acts in the wilderness. In Ps. 106, for example, there are references to the sin of “wanton craving” (vv. 14–15; cf. Exod. 16:1–12; Num. 11:1–6), idolatry (vv. 19–23; cf. Exod. 32:1–15), and the “testing” of God at Massah/Meribah (vv. 32–33; cf. Exod. 17:1–7; Num. 20:1–13). These traditions seem to lie behind Jesus’ three temptations, as they involve the craving of food, worshiping of a false god, and testing of God. Moreover, in Jewish traditions one can also find the listing of three particular sins to characterize Israel’s disobedience in the wilderness, although the sins listed may not be the same in the different lists (cf. Tg. Neof.; Frg. Tg.; Deut. Rab. 1:2; see Stegner 1990: 14).
In light of the allusions to the OT behind the various elements of this narrative, the point of the entire narrative is clear: unlike the Israelites who failed in the wilderness, Jesus is the faithful Son of God. Therefore, the three individual citations from Deut. 6–8 should be read together as establishing this point. With the first temptation, Jesus quotes from Deut. 8:3 to point to his total reliance on God. With the second, Jesus reaffirms the central point of Deut. 6, which emphasizes the need to worship God only. With the third, the use of Deut. 6:16 makes it clear that the point is the refusal to force God to provide a sign of his presence, since God is the one to be trusted. In all three, then, the focus is on the faithful obedience to the one God of Israel. In their context, however, all three temptations also point to the nature of Jesus’ messianic ministry. The use of divine power, the means to accomplish the plan of God, and the way the dawn of the eschatological era is to be manifested are issues that this narrative introduces, and they will be further developed in Luke’s narrative.
Most would agree that the missing phrase “in all your ways” should not be considered as the key to Satan’s use of Ps. 91:11–12 (see Bock 1994–1996: 381; Bovon 2002: 144). On a rhetorical level, it is ironic to have Satan using a psalm that had been understood as an excorcistic text (Allison 2000a: 159). In light of the wilderness context of this psalm, one also can see how Satan is using Scripture to tempt Jesus to test the presence of God as Israel did in the times of old. The possible connection between the pterygion (“pinnacle” [Luke 4:9]) of the temple and the pterygas (“wings” [Ps. 90:4 LXX]) of God’s protection further confirms this point, as it is the way that God’s presence is to be experienced that is at issue (Brawley 1992: 428–29).
F. Theological Use. With the use of Scripture, an Israel typology is clearly developed. Unlike Israel, which failed in the wilderness, Jesus has proven to be the faithful Son of God. In Luke’s narrative the story of Israel’s failure continues to be documented in accounts of their refusal to respond to the gospel (cf. Acts 13:46; 18:6; 28:28), and this failure is explicitly linked with Israel’s rebellious acts in the wilderness (cf. Acts 7:35–42, 51–53). In ecclesiological terms, Jesus also “fulfills” the destiny of Israel as he accomplishes what Israel was called to perform as God’s son (cf. Deut. 8:5). When the foundation story of Israel is evoked, Jesus does not simply embody Israel, but rather becomes the foundation of God’s people in the eschatological era. As he did in the past, God is once again calling a “people [laon] for his name” (Acts 15:14).
Building on the significance of the wilderness context, some have further argued for a Mosaic Christology behind this text. This view would be strengthened if the use of Deut. 34:1–4 could be established in Luke’s account of Jesus’ second temptation when the devil “showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world” (4:5) (see Stegner 1990: 9). Luke’s further portrayal of Jesus as the prophet like Moses (Acts 3:22; 7:37) would also be consistent with this view. Nevertheless, it is difficult to see how Deut. 34:1–4 contributes to the main point of the second temptation. More importantly, the focus throughout the narrative is on Jesus as the true Israel, and there is no explicit attempt to portray Jesus as the new Moses in this account.
Equally questionable is the presence of an explicit Adam typology in this text (see Schürmann 1990–1994: 1:214). Although the testing of Adam in the Garden of Eden would provide an attractive parallel, the use of Deut. 6–8 strongly links this testing with Israel’s wilderness experience. Nevertheless, Luke’s genealogy, which ends with Adam as the son of God immediately before the temptation narrative, argues for the presence of thematic links on some levels, and clearly the creation story often was linked with the exodus story (cf. Exod. 15; Deut. 32:7–14; Ps. 74:12–17; 77:12–20; 89:5–37; 114), especially when the new creative act of God is expected (cf. Isa. 43:15–21; 45:9–18; 51:12–16).
Luke 4:18–19
A. NT Context: Definition of Jesus’ Ministry. The Nazareth sermon scene follows the introduction of Jesus’ identity through the heavenly voice in the baptismal scene, his genealogy, and his temptation in the wilderness. This passage continues to clarify the significance of Jesus’ ministry by situating it within its wider context in salvation history. As in Luke 3:4–6, Jesus’ ministry is further explicated by a block quotation from the text of Isaiah (see Pao 2000: 70–84). Some commentators (see Miesner 1978: 223–24; Tiede 1980: 103–7) have pointed to a chiastic structure in Luke 4:16–21: the synagogue setting (4:16, 20), Jesus’ standing and sitting down (4:16, 20), Jesus’ being given the book (4:17, 20), and the opening and closing of the book (4:17, 20). At the center is the reading of Isa. 61:1–2; 58:6.
Following Bultmann (1963: 31–32, 386–87), many identify Mark as the source for this Lukan scene. Both accounts contain a question concerning Jesus’ origin and a proverb within a Nazareth synagogue setting. Beyond this framework, however, much of the material in Luke is without Markan parallel. Some have pointed to the use of Q (Tuckett 1982: 347–48), but the availability of other traditional material cannot be ruled out (Chilton 1981: 164). The source-critical question should not be allowed to undermine Luke’s role in highlighting the programmatic nature of this scene for his story of Jesus and his apostles.
B. Isa. 61:1–2; 58:6 in Context. Isaiah 61 begins with a renewed focus on the prophet and his message. The good news announced in Isa. 61 is anticipated by the message in chapters 58–60, where the call to repentance accompanies the promise of God’s salvation. Chapter 61 stands out, however, in that the proclamation is to be performed by an individual who receives the special anointment of the Spirit. This individual has parallels in the servant figure of Isa. 40–55. The anointment of the Spirit recalls 42:1, and his being “sent” by the Lord with his Spirit points back to 48:16. The description of the mission of the prophet of Isa. 61:1–2 also reflects the first Servant Song, in which the servant is sent “to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon” (42:7). Moreover, the idea of “the year of the LORD’s favor” (61:2) parallels the “time of favor” of 49:8. Thus Beuken (1989) is correct in understanding Isa. 61 as an “interpretation” of Isa. 40–55.
This context also contributes to our understanding of the specific goals of the prophet’s ministry: to bring good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives, to restore sight to the blind, and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. In light of Isa. 40–55, these individual elements point to the same reality: the reversal of the fortunes of God’s oppressed people (see M. Turner 1996: 250). Metaphors from the economic, political, physical, and social realms were used to express the expectation of the total reversal of the fate of Israel with the arrival of the eschatological era. Isa. 61:1–2, therefore, does not provide a detailed agenda of the prophet’s ministry; it does echo Isa. 40:1–11 in proclaiming consolation to Israel when God lifts up his humiliated people.
Isaiah 58:6 should likewise be understood within this wider context where the infinitive clause “to set the oppressed free” contributes to the constellation of metaphors in describing the good news. As in Isa. 40–55, where the justice of God is to be manifested (cf. 51:1–6), God’s people are also called to act justly in Isa. 58. Although Israel may be able to perform certain religious rituals, the prophet here points to the way in which the righteousness of God can be acted out (58:6–9). Read together with Isa. 61:1–2, the call to Israel “to set the oppressed free” in 58:6 becomes the promise of the anointed prophet who points to the realization of Israel’s call.
C. Isa. 61:1–2; 58:6 in Judaism. Isaiah 61 plays an important role in the Qumran documents. There are texts where Isa. 61:1–2 is used to refer to the prophets within the community (cf. CD-A II, 12; XIII, 10; 1QM XI, 7; see Nolland 1989–1993: 196), but other texts point to the eschatological understanding of these verses. In 11Q13 phrases from Isa. 61:1–2 are linked with Lev. 25:13; Deut. 15:2; Ps. 7:8–9; 82:1–2; Isa. 52:7 to portray the expectation of the eschatological Jubilee (M. P. Miller 1969; J. A. Sanders 1975: 85). Other texts, such as 4Q521, reflect a similar eschatological reading of Isa. 61 without connecting it with the Jubilee setting of Lev. 25 (Collins [1997] further suggests that 4Q521 reflects a nonsectarian reading of Isa. 61). Thus the Jubilee setting is not necessarily tied to an eschatological interpretation of Isa. 61:1–2 (cf. Midr. Lam. 3:50 [73a]; Tg. Ps.-J. Num. 25:12; see J. A. Sanders 1975: 86–88).
The prophetic nature of the text is affirmed by the Targum of Isa. 61:1–2, where the speaker is explicitly identified as the prophet. This is consistent with the portrayal of Isaiah in Lev. Rab. 10:2, where the themes from Isa. 40–55 are combined with that of Isa. 61:1–2 in the explication of the mission of the anointed prophet (Crockett 1966b: 276). The messianic use of the text also appears in 4Q521, where one finds a similar combination of Isa. 61:1–2 and 58:6 in depicting the ministry of the “Messiah” (cf. CD-A XIII). This paves the way for Jesus’ combination of the two texts in describing his prophetic and messianic role.
D. Textual Matters. This quotation (Isa. 61:1–2 with 58:6) is likely to have been drawn from the LXX, which accurately reflects the sense of the MT except for the infinitive clause liqrōʾ . . . wĕlaʾăsûrîm pĕqaḥ-qôaḥ (“to proclaim . . . release for the prisoners”), which was translated as kēryxai . . . typhlois anablepsin (“to proclaim . . . sight to the blind ones”). The interchangeability of these ideas may support the interpretation of these infinitive clauses that use different metaphors to refer to the same reality: the reversal of the fortune of Israel. In any case, the exact sense of the Hebrew text is uncertain, and the LXX may have provided a legitimate rendering of the clause (see Kimball 1994b: 100).
Luke’s quotation follows the LXX, with four changes: (1) the clause iasasthai tous syntetrimmenous tē kardia (“to heal the brokenhearted” [Isa. 61:1c]) is omitted; (2) a clause from Isa. 58:6 is inserted in Luke 4:18: aposteilai tethrausmenous en aphesei (“to let the oppressed go free”), and the LXX of Isa. 58:6 has apostelle instead of aposteilai; (3) Luke 4:19 has kēruxai (“to proclaim”) instead of kalesai (“to declare”) of Isa. 61:2; and (4) the Isaianic quotation in Luke 4:19 stops with the phrase eniauton kyriou dekton (“a year of the Lord’s favor”) without including the final part of Isa. 61:2.
The inclusion of the clause iasasthai tous syntetrimmenous tē kardia (“to heal the brokenhearted” [Isa. 61:1c]) in the Lukan citation in some manuscripts (e.g., Α Θ Ψ 0102 f1 𝔐) seems to be an attempt to assimilate the quotation with the LXX reading. Its omission can be attributed to Luke’s use of a traditional source (Chilton 1984: 181) or to his use of a defective copy of Isaiah (Holtz 1968: 125). Rese’s (1969: 145) suggestion that Luke intentionally leaves out the phrase to avoid emphasizing the healing ministry of Jesus is unlikely in light of the Lukan context (4:23, 27). One can only tentatively conclude that the omission is not theologically motivated.
The inclusion of a phrase from Isa. 58:6 may be motivated by the presence of aphesis (“release”) in both Isa. 58:6 and 61:1 (Koet 1989: 30). This would serve as an example of what is later known as gezerah shavah. The significance of aphesis in the sense of “forgiveness” in Luke’s writings (Luke 1:77; 3:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18) supports this reading. It should be noted, however, that Isa. 61:1 and 58:6 are already connected in documents such as 4Q521 (see above). F. Bovon (2002: 153) has further pointed to the connection between Isa. 57:15–58:14 and 61:1–11 in texts associated with the celebration of Yom Kippur.
Luke’s use of kēryxai (“to proclaim”) instead of kalesai (“to declare”) may again reflect the significance of the term kēryssō in Luke’s vocabulary (cf. Luke 3:3; 4:44; 8:1, 39; 9:2; 12:3; 24:47; Acts 8:5; 9:20; 10:37, 42; 15:21; 19:13; 20:25; 28:31). Although Luke may be following the MT here, the semantic fields of these two Greek words are too close to establish this point.
Finally, the omission of Isa. 61:2b probably is motivated by Luke’s intention to highlight dekton (“favor”) as the final word of his scriptural quotation. This is confirmed by the function of dektos in the discussion that follows (4:24). The suggestion (Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 533) that 61:2b is omitted because Luke wanted to downplay the theme of judgment is unlikely in light of its appearance already in 2:34–35; 3:7–17.
E. The Use of Isa. 61:1–2; 58:6 in Luke 4:18–19. The significance of the Nazareth synagogue scene is indicated by Luke’s placement of it at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. The fulfillment of the eschatological program of Isaiah is indicated by Jesus’ statement after his reading of the scriptural passages: sēmeron peplērōtai hē graphē hautē en tois ōsin hymōn (“Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing”).
The foregoing discussion of Isa. 61:1–2 has shown that the different metaphors used in this passage all point to the oppressed condition of Israel. In light of Luke 7:22, however, a literal reading cannot be ruled out, since the metaphors become actualized in the ministry of Jesus himself. The “poor,” then, symbolize not only Israel in suffering (6:20), but also those who are without means and the outcasts in general (11:41; 12:33; 14:13). The “blind” likewise can be used in a symbolic way to describe those without salvation (1:78–79; 2:29–32; 3:6), but it also refers to those who are physically impaired (18:35–43; Acts 9:18–19). The “release” can also refer to the freedom from the power of Satan (13:10–17; Acts 10:38) or the literal release from debts (11:4) (see Green 1997: 211).
The hermeneutical significance of Isa. 61:1–2 for the ministry of Jesus is indicated by its allusion in Luke 7:22 in response to a question raised concerning the nature and meaning of his ministry. The allusion to Isa. 61:1–2 and the Nazareth sermon scene in Acts 10:35–38 further confirms the programmatic nature of Luke 4:18–19 (see Turner 1981: 22–23). As in the case of Luke 3:4–6 (Isa. 40:3–5), the ministry of Jesus is to be understood in light of the program outlined in Isaiah.
In light of the way Isa. 61 is used in 11Q13 (see above), one has to consider whether Luke intends to evoke the Jubilee theology with this Isaianic citation. Some commentators (see Sloan 1997; Prior 1995) have argued for the presence of a full-blown theology in the use of this quotation, but other Jewish documents (e.g., 4Q521) have shown that the phrase “the year of the Lord’s favor” does not necessarily point to the Jubilee paradigm. Moreover, as O’Brien (2001: 438–39) has pointed out, distinct Jubilee themes and references are entirely absent in the Lukan writings, and there is no evidence that Luke was aware of the Jubilee interpretation in his use of Isa. 61:1–2. Nevertheless, one can concede that the Jubilee connection does highlight the social, economic, and political impact of the arrival of the eschatological era. As in Isa. 61 (and 40–55), this Jubilee theme is one among many that contribute to the wider prophetic paradigm of the second exodus. It is this paradigm that finds repeated emphasis in Luke’s writings.
While Isa. 61:1–2; 58:6 provide the content of the proclamation of God’s salvific acts, the Lukan context in which it is placed provides significant qualification to this jubilant note. First, the comment on how the prophet is not welcome (dektos) in his own land in 4:24 not only identifies Jesus as prophet but also indicates that his ministry is to be characterized by rejection. Despite the actualization of the promises of eschatological salvation, Israel fails to accept God’s messenger. Second, the contrast between native and foreign land in 4:23–24 is illustrated by the examples of Elijah and Elisha in 4:25–27, where the mission to the Gentiles is at least implied. Without arguing for a cause-and-effect relationship, Luke’s story of the early Christian movement is characterized by the rejection of the Jews and the inclusion of the Gentiles.
F. Theological Use. As noted above, the relationship between Isa. 61:1–2 and 40–55 highlights the role of the prophet and the servant in the eschatological new exodus. Jesus’ self-identification as a prophet in 4:24 and the use of the examples of Elijah and Elisha in 4:25–27 give further support to this reading. Moreover, in Luke 7, where one finds another evocation of Isa. 61 (v. 22), Jesus is identified as prophētēs megas (“a great prophet” [v. 16]).
Whether a messianic reference is intended with the use of Isa. 61:1–2 is subject to debate, however. J. A. Fitzmyer (1981–1985: 529–30) argues for an exclusive prophetic reading of the text, but the reference to “anointment” may also have messianic connotations. First, the Isaianic servant figure already displays both prophetic and messianic characteristics (Strauss 1995: 244–49). Second, a messianic reading of Isa. 61:1–2 can already be identified in 11Q13 and 4Q521. Third, in 3:22 the phrase sy ei huios mou (“you are my Son”) clearly points to the messianic Ps. 2:7. Together with en soi eudokēsa (“with you I am well pleased”), which alludes to Isa. 42:1, this again produces the combination of servant and messianic texts to identify Jesus. Finally, the “anointment” motif is most often applied to royal figures. In short, a clear distinction between the prophetic and the messianic character of Isa. 61:1–2 should not be made, and the remaining narrative in Luke’s Gospel will point to both Jesus’ prophetic and messianic roles.
Finally, the theological significance of this passage is not limited to Luke’s Gospel. Themes such as the rejection of the Jews in a synagogue setting, inclusion of the Gentiles, the role of the Spirit, and the powerful nature of the logos (“word”) in 4:16–31 point to the significance of this passage for Luke’s narrative in Acts. Thus the ministry of Jesus is again connected with the ministry of the apostles in a setting containing a lengthy Isaianic quotation.
4:25–27
The story of Elijah in 4:25–26 is taken from 1 Kings 17:8–24, where Elijah is sent to Zarephath of Sidon after warning Ahab of God’s judgment (4:1). Elijah’s leaving for Zarephath can be understood as a reaction to Ahab’s persecution (cf. 4:3). The ironic point is that while he was rejected by a Jewish king, he was welcomed by a Gentile (see C. A. Evans 1993a: 74). In Luke, Jesus is likewise rejected by the Jews while turning to those outside of God’s community. The story of Elisha in 4:27 alludes to Elisha’s healing of Naaman in 2 Kings 5:1–19. After his healing, Naaman, a commander of the army of the Syrian king of Aram (5:1), acknowledges the God of Israel: “Now I know that there is no God in all the earth except in Israel” (5:15). In the words of Elisha, the visit of Naaman is to show those outside of Israel that “there is a prophet in Israel” (5:8). Luke’s use of this story points to the recognition of Jesus as the prophet of Israel as well as the concern for those outside the covenant community. The use of the stories of Elijah and Elisha may also reflect the eschatological use of these traditions to point to the prophetic ministries of the one to come (see Crockett 1966b: 248–76).
As these stories follow the proverb concerning the rejection of Jesus as a prophet (4:24), they point to Israel’s history of rejecting God’s messengers. Moreover, references to the widow of Zarephath and Naaman point to a turn to the Gentiles. What is not clear, however, is the exact relationship between the themes of Jewish rejection and Gentile inclusion. A strict cause-and-effect relationship cannot be established in light of the prophetic nature of this warning that aims at calling Israel to repent. Moreover, the mission to the Jews continues to the end of Luke’s narrative (and beyond). Nevertheless, although the Gentile mission is not brought about by Israel’s rejection of their Messiah, the two events are at least mentioned together to highlight the consequences of Israel’s disobedience. In the wider context, where Isa. 61:1–2; 58:6 are used (4:18–19), these stories serve as qualifications to the jubilant note that points to the dawn of Israel’s salvation. The response to this act of God remains to be seen in the remaining narrative of Luke.
4:34
Variations of the title ho hagios tou theou (“the Holy One of God”) have been applied to Aaron (Ps. 106:16 [105:16 LXX]), Samson (Judg. 13:7; 16:7 [LXX B]), and Elisha (2 Kings 4:9). In light of these references, some have hypothesized a priestly, Naziritic, or prophetic context behind the Lukan use of the title here (see Hahn 1969: 231–35). In 1:35 the term hagios (“holy”) is applied to Jesus in a context where he is presented as the royal Messiah, and in Acts 4:27, 30 the term is used with the noun pais (“servant”) in describing Jesus. From these different uses, it becomes apparent that the title should not be limited to one conceptual framework. In 4:34 the title points to Jesus’ special status as one who is able to overpower the unclean spirits, and thus it is used as a way to denote “the sphere of the divine” (Twelftree 1993: 67). Elsewhere in Luke, Jesus’ identity as messiah, prophet, and servant explains the unique presence of this power in him.
4:43
The concept of the Davidic kingdom is already introduced in 1:32–33, and in this verse the expression hē basileia tou theou (“the kingdom of God”) finds its first appearance in the Lukan writings. In the OT the reign of God is expressed primarily through the covenant framework, but the reign of Yahweh is often noted (1 Chron. 17:14; 28:5; 29:11; Ps. 103:19; 145:11–13; Dan. 4:3, 34; 7:27), while the title melek (“king”) is also applied to Yahweh himself (cf., e.g., 1 Sam. 12:12; Ps. 5:3 [5:2 ET]; 10:16; 29:10; 44:5 [44:4 ET]; 47:3, 7–8 [47:2, 6–8 ET]; 74:12; 145:1; 149:2; Isa. 6:5; 41:21; 43:15; Jer. 10:7; 48:15; 51:57; Zech. 14:9, 16–17; Mal. 1:14; see Patrick 1987: 72). The focus of these passages, however, is on the sovereignty of God and his control over his creation. Some texts do point to the renewal of God’s kingdom (cf. Isa. 33:22; 52:7; Zeph. 3:15), and also relevant are the traditions that point to the reestablishment of the Davidic kingdom (cf. Isa. 7–9; Jer. 23:5–8; 33:14–26; Ezek. 37:24–28; Zech. 3:8–10; 12:7–9).
In Jewish traditions one finds a variety of images attached to this symbol of God’s sovereignty. It could point to the establishment of God’s political kingdom on earth (Pss. Sol. 17) or the eschatological/messianic kingdom (T. Mos. 10; 1 En. 37–71; 4 Ezra 7:28–30). The expectation of the restoration of God’s sovereignty continues to appear in Jewish liturgical traditions, as expressed in Benediction 11 of the Shemoneh Esreh. Popular messianic movements of the Second Temple period also testify to the continuation of the hope of the realization of God’s promises on earth (cf. Josephus, Ant. 17.271–285; J.W. 2.71–75, 422–442; see Horsley and Hanson 1985: 110–27; Collins 1987; M. de Jonge 1988: 156–58).
In the Lukan writings the “kingdom of God” evokes a number of images. First, the Davidic kingdom as introduced in 1:32–33 and emphasized throughout the Lukan writings provides continuity with Jewish expectation. This kingdom, however, is not to be portrayed primarily in political terms, since kingdom language in Luke points further to the physical (cf. 9:2) and spiritual renewal of God’s people (cf. 12:31–34). Second, the cosmic significance of the arrival of God’s kingdom is illustrated in 11:18–20 with the reference to the fall of Satan. The onset of God’s kingdom is therefore considered as a challenge to Satan’s power and control. Third, the emphasis on the presence of God’s kingdom is balanced by the expectation of the consummation of God’s kingdom (see 11:1–4). These two aspects also characterize Luke’s kingdom parables (13:18–21). Finally, the preaching of God’s kingdom also provides a link between Jesus and his apostles (Acts 1:3; 8:12; 19:8; 28:23, 31). This is particularly important in light of the fact that Luke’s work concludes with a note about Paul preaching the kingdom in Rome, the center of the Roman Empire. The story of the spread of the gospel becomes one that reflects the sovereignty of God and Jesus, his exalted Messiah (cf. Acts 2:33–36; 4:24–30).
Despite the similarities between Luke 5:1–11 and John 21:1–9, significant differences between the two texts suggest that the account of the call of the first disciples here should be analyzed on its own terms (Abogunrin 1985: 592–93). A number of elements recall similar OT call accounts (Exod. 3:1–22; Josh. 1:1–9; Isa. 6:1–10; Jer. 1:4–10): divine initiative (5:4), Simon’s protest (5:8) and reaction (5:9), divine reassurance (5:10b) and commission (5:10c) (see Polich 1991: 138–39). In terms of form, Isa. 6:1–10 provides the closest parallel, as the actual commissioning is the final element of the account (Green 1997: 233). Other themes in the story may also reflect Elijah’s call of Elisha in 1 Kings 19:19–21, especially since the calling took place when the disciples were fishing, just as Elisha was plowing (Aus 2000: 92–104, 124).
5:10
Conceptual parallels to “fishers of men” can be found in Jer. 16:16; Amos 4:2; Hab. 1:17. Instead of seeing this as a metaphor for hunting and killing, some have suggested that the use of the word zōgrōn (“taking alive”) emphasizes the instilling of new lives (see Wuellner 1967: 237–38).
5:14
The instruction to the healed leper, “Go and show yourself to the priest,” reflects Lev. 13:49; 14:1–32 (cf. Luke 17:14). The continued relevance of this Mosaic regulation in the time of Jesus is reflected in 11Q19 XLVIII, 17–XLIX, 4 and in the later Mishnah (cf. Ṭeharot and Negaʿim; see Fitzmyer 1981–1985: 575; Bock 1994–1996: 476). In the context of OT ritual laws this Mosaic regulation points to a rite of passage where the celebrant moves from the realm of impurity and is restored into the worshiping community of Israel (Milgrom 1991–2001: 887–89).
5:21
The charge of blasphemy is directed against Jesus, who proclaimed forgiveness apart from the Jerusalem cult (cf. Lev. 4:22–5:16; 16:15–16; see Chilton 1992: 133). The theological basis for this cultic practice is that Yahweh is the God of Israel (Exod. 29:46), and that forgiveness belongs to God alone (Ps. 130:4; Isa. 43:25; Mic. 7:18). To proclaim forgiveness to the paralyzed man, therefore, is to make a theological statement that challenges the Pharisees and the teachers of the law.
5:24
The origin and significance of the expression ho huios tou anthrōpou (“Son of Man”) has been widely debated. This expression appears eighty-two times in the Gospels, always used by Jesus as a self-reference (with the exception in John 12:34). Parallels from the OT for this expression can be identified in three contexts: (1) in the psalms it is used as a generic reference to human beings in general (Ps. 8:4; 144:3) and to Israel in particular (Ps. 80:17); (2) in Ezekiel it is used when God addresses the prophets (e.g., 2:1; 3:3; 4:1); and (3) in Dan. 7:13–14 it appears in an apocalyptic context where one like a Son of Man “came to the Ancient One” and “was given dominion and glory and kingship.” When we come to the time of Jesus, the meaning of the phrase in Aramaic has generated another set of debates. G. Vermes (1967), for example, argues that the phrase could be used as a circumlocution in an exclusive sense, while others question this conclusion (Fitzmyer 1979a).
The generic reference of this phrase receives substantial support in biblical and Aramaic sources, but the use of the expression in apocalyptic material demands further attention. Drawn from Dan. 7:13–14, the expression is used in 1 En. 37–71 and 4 Ezra 13. According to J. J. Collins (1992), the independent traditions in the Similitudes of 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra point to the common first-century understanding of Dan. 7: (1) the use of the expression as a reference to an individual; (2) the works of the individual can be compared to that of the expected Messiah; (3) the individual acquires some divine attributes such as preexistence; and (4) moving beyond Dan. 7, this figure takes on a more explicit destructive role. Although “Son of Man” is not yet a title in these documents, one can speak of a formulaic expression deriving from the readings of Dan. 7.
The exact significance of the expression can be determined primarily by its use in the NT contexts. The use of the expression in the later portions of Luke (cf. 21:27, 36; 22:69) clearly points to the apocalyptic figure that one finds in exegetical traditions deriving from Dan. 7:13, but earlier references seem to be used in a more ambiguous way. Even in these references, however, one may detect that the circumlocution is functioning in a “quasi-titular” manner (Marshall 1990: 113), the full significance of which is made clear only at the end of Luke’s narrative. The authority of Jesus the Son of Man to forgive sins in 5:24 fits well with this reading, where the ambiguity is at least partly clarified by references to Jesus’ authority.
5:30
The use of egongyzon (“were complaining”) here in describing the Pharisees and the teachers of the law is significant. In the LXX this word group (gongyzō, diagongyzō, gongysmos) is often used to describe the “murmuring” of Israel in their wilderness journey (Exod. 15:24; 16:7–12; 17:3; Num. 11:1; 14:2, 27–29, 36; 16:11, 41; 17:5, 10). In later writings Israel’s rebellion against God is described with the use of the same word group (Ps. 59:15 [58:16 LXX]; Ps. 106:25 [105:25 LXX]; Sir. 46:7; 1 Cor. 10:10). In Luke’s Gospel the rebellious nature of Israel has already been hinted at with the evocation of Deut. 6–8 in Jesus’ response to Satan in 4:1–13. Here, in opposing the faithful Son of God, the Pharisees and the scribes are following the rebellious ways of their ancestors. In 15:2; 19:7 the verb diagongyzō is similarly used in describing the Jewish leadership’s misunderstanding of the mission of Jesus.
5:33–35
In the OT fasting was practiced when individuals (2 Sam. 12:16–23; 1 Kings 21:27; Ps. 35:13; 69:10; 109:24) or the people of God (Judg. 20:26; 2 Chron. 20:3; Ezra 8:21–23; Neh. 1:4; Esther 4:3, 16) were in a time of crisis. Fasting was also frequently the response of sinners in their acts of confession (1 Sam. 7:6; Joel 1:14; 2:12–15; Jon. 3:5). Particularly relevant for our purposes is the connection between fasting and mourning (1 Sam. 31:13; 2 Sam. 1:12; 1 Chron. 10:12). Of the Jewish feasts, fasting is required only on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 23:26–32; Num. 29:7–11), but during the time of Jesus days of fasting were observed regularly, and this emphasis on fasting had even attracted the attention of the pagans (cf. Suetonius, Aug. 76.2; see Diamond 2004: 95–98, 181). The Pharisaic practice of fasting is noted elsewhere in Luke (cf. 18:12), and later rabbinic sources confirm the continuation of this emphasis (Str-B 2:241–44). The discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees in 5:33–35 is probably not primarily intended to be a discussion of the validity of the Mosaic law in general, but rather a discussion of the lesser rituals practiced by the Pharisees and their scribes (E. P. Sanders 1985: 207). In the OT fasting as a religious ritual had already been an object of prophetic critique (Isa. 58:3–6; Jer. 14:12). Jesus further points to the connection between fasting and grieving, however, in making his point. On the surface, therefore, Jesus notes the arrival of a new era that calls for rejoicing instead of mourning. Implicit is a critique of the fasting of the Pharisees and the scribes who care more about external observances than the will of God.
The metaphor of the bridegroom is applied to God in the OT (cf. Isa. 54:5–8; 62:4–5; Jer. 2:2; Ezek. 16; Hos. 2:18, 21), and it is only in later traditions that this metaphor is applied to the Messiah (cf. 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:25–27; Rev. 19:7–10; 21:2; Pirqe R. El. 4; Pesiq. Rab. 149a; see O’Neill 1988: 485; Bock 1994–1996: 516). In rabbinic traditions there is a list of days on which fasting is forbidden (cf. Megillah Taʿanit; see Bovon 2002: 191), and the day of the wedding is one of them. Jesus may be aware of similar traditions when he addresses the arrival of times of eschatological joy.
A number of elements in this text presuppose a knowledge of relevant OT and Jewish traditions: plucking of grains in the fields, Sabbath regulations, and the story of David in the “house of God.” First, the disciples’ plucking of heads of grain in the field reflects the regulations for gleaning in Lev. 19:9–10: “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest. . . . you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the LORD your God” (cf. Lev. 23:22; Deut. 24:21; Ruth 2:1–23). The disciples may be considered as the poor ones, although in the rabbinic traditions a traveler can be considered among the “poor” who are allowed to glean from the field: “[As regards] a householder who is traveling from one place to another, and [because he has no money] he needs to collect gleanings, forgotten sheaves, peah or poor man’s tithe, let him collect [what he needs]” (m. Peʾah 5:4 [Neusner 1988: 24]).
Under debate, however, is not the act of gleaning itself, but rather the act as practiced on a Sabbath. The complex set of Sabbath regulations grows out of the basic command to “rest” found in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:8–11; Deut. 5:12–15). In Exod. 34:21 a further emphasis is added: “even in plowing time and in harvest time you shall rest.” Further explication of the Sabbath regulation is found in later writings, especially when the Jews were living among the Gentiles (cf. Neh. 13:15–22). As a “sign” between God and his covenant partner (Ezek. 20:12), the Sabbath became one of the distinctive markers of Israel (cf. 1 Macc. 2:27–41; Josephus, J.W. 1.157–160). Building on Exod. 34:21, further development of Sabbath regulations concerning the works of the field is found in rabbinic traditions where plowing, reaping, threshing, winnowing, sorting through produce or crops, and other works of the field are prohibited (cf. m. Šabb. 7:2), although common agreement as to exactly what is prohibited may be lacking in the time of Jesus. It is also unclear whether “plucking” is commonly considered to be an unacceptable act on a Sabbath.
The story of David is taken from 1 Sam. 21:1–6, where the “shewbread,” or “bread of the Presence,” was offered to David and his companions when he came to the priest Ahimelech at the sanctuary in Nob. The main point of comparison between the disciples’ plucking of grain and the story of David and his companions is debated. To some, the obvious point of comparison is that “ceremonial restrictions of law are to give way to human need” (Bock 1994–1996: 525). While even in Jewish discussions the overriding of Sabbath regulations is permitted in cases of urgent need (cf. Mek. Exod. 21:12–17; see Casey 1988: 15), the lack of emphasis on the “need” of Jesus’ disciples forces one to look for stronger parallels between the two.
The second point of comparison is between David and Jesus himself, as the connection between them has already been established in the earlier chapters (1:32–33, 68–79; 2:11; 3:22, 31). The point is that “David had the authority to act as he did, and that Jesus has the same right, but in a higher degree, to reinterpret the law” (Marshall 1978: 228). The Lukan omission of Mark’s comment on the intent of the law may heighten the significance of this christological point, although it is Matthew who explicitly notes Jesus saying that “something greater than the temple is here” (Matt. 12:6). Nevertheless, the explicit mentioning of David’s entering “the house of God” (Luke 6:4) may presuppose an understanding similar to that of Matthew’s when Jesus is compared with the temple, where the presence of God is found. To further suggest that a eucharistic context is presupposed in this text is to move beyond the evidence of the text (contra Grassi 1964).
The third point builds on the Jewish interpretation of 1 Sam. 21:1–6. In 6:4 Jesus himself stated that only the priests could eat the bread of the Presence; this exceptional clause, though absent in 1 Sam. 21, is present in texts such as Lev. 24:8–9, where the priests are allowed to eat the bread when it was changed on a Sabbath day. Jesus’ mentioning of this priestly right may therefore reflect the Jewish traditions that connect the story of David in 1 Sam. 21:1–6 with the Sabbath context. M. Casey (1988: 10–12) rightly points to the explicit location of 1 Sam. 21:1–6 within a Sabbath context in rabbinic traditions (cf. Yalquṭ Shimʿoni 2:30; y. Yoma 8:5; b. Menaḥ. 95b). If Luke was aware of this connection, then Jesus may be using the Pharisaic traditions to argue against their interpretation of the law.
6:9
On the fulfillment of human needs on the Sabbath, see discussion on 6:1–5 above.
6:12–16
Some commentators (see, e.g., Schürmann 1990–1994: 1:313) have detected an exodus allusion here, as Jesus’ act of establishing the Twelve brings to mind what Moses did on his way to the mountain as “he set up twelve pillars, corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel” (Exod. 24:4). F. Bovon (2002: 208) points further to postbiblical traditions where motifs of mountain and prayer are connected with the renewal of Israel (cf. L.A.B. 11–15). In light of the significance of the prayer motif in Luke’s Gospel (cf. 3:21; 9:18, 28; 11:1–13; 18:1–8; 22:31–32, 40, 46), Jesus’ praying on the mountain in this context (cf. 9:28) is not unexpected. Nevertheless, the call of the Twelve does bring to mind the foundational event of Israel. The connection between the twelve disciples and the twelve tribes of Israel is made explicit in 22:28–30.